rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* grim news for photographers tourism and rights - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
* Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? - 14 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c04187075ef6f9c5?hl=en
* damsel fly .... - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f05acdbde3658901?hl=en
* The Ultimate Photo-Bag - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d379eb3ce3f36aff?hl=en
* How to hold and carry a camera with a heavy lens - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/35d5d71e3cce87b4?hl=en
* Hey Noons, Has it Really Been 6 Months? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8df2a8096dc7b7ba?hl=en
* Photos of event - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ca1c8204b4924c9e?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 9:22 am
From: nospam
In article <hvj725lkahqa8t0e7n7uiro0b10416l5g8@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >what was the crime? taking a photo in a public place is not illegal
> >unless there's a prohibition for photography.
>
> The photographer wasn't charged with taking a photograph. He was
> charged with something else, and that's been posted here many times.
> The BTP officer evidently felt that the actions constituted harassment
> under the Act. It seems like an inappropriate response, but we don't
> know what went on when the BTP officer questioned the photographer.
> If the photographer acted like Becker did in Seattle, it becomes more
> understandable.
uh, what do you mean if he acted like becker? like most normal people,
becker didn't want to put up with being harassed. unlike most people,
however, he knew his rights under the law. too bad the cops didn't.
> >> If you consider a police officer who makes an arrest, and the charge
> >> is later dropped because of insufficient evidence, to be criminal,
> >> then almost every police officer in any jurisdiction is a criminal.
> >
> >that's silly. if they arrest someone with articulable cause, it's not
> >criminal.
>
> "Articulable cause" pertains to detainment for questioning. It's not
> an arrest. It's not a charge, either. It's something the officer
> must provide to justify the detainment. It simply means "I can
> explain why I felt it was proper to require the person to answer my
> questions".
right, and it has to be valid. they can't arrest someone because they
feel like it. taking a photograph is legal so there's no reason to
arrest anyone for it unless it's something *else* like poking the
camera up a skirt.
> >if they arrest someone when there's no evidence to suggest
> >any crime has been committed, then it can be criminal.
> >
> >look at the recent seattle atm case for a *very* clear example of that.
>
> Clear example of what? A photographer being detained (He wasn't
> arrested. No charge was filed.) because he got snarky with the police
> about being asked why he was taking a photograph?
he was indeed arrested and there's a photo of him being arrested on his
web site. he had every right to be snarky because they were harassing
the fuck out of him.
there was *no* reason to detain or question him. they asked him why he
took the picture and he said because he can. that's where it should
have ended. he didn't make a grab for the cash or threaten anyone so
there was no reason to pursue it. instead, the guards played bully.
if rei didn't like it, *they* could have asked him to leave and if he
didn't leave, *then* the cops would have had reason to pursue it. but
that didn't happen.
> It is a clear example of insisting on your "rights" instead of acting
> with some common sense. Becker was not arrested for taking the
> photograph of the Loomis employees filling the ATM with cash. He was
> detained for his subsequent actions.
nothing he did was illegal nor did it warrant being detained and
subsequently arrested.
> I wouldn't call Becker a "photographer", anyway. No real photographer
> would claim that image as his work. It was a poorly taken snapshot.
so what? plenty of 'real photographers' take snapshots. not everyone
is ansel adams and not every photo is a masterpiece. he was legally
entitled to take the photo. period.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 9:37 am
From: Chris H
In message <t0u725dmrt05bu44k05nn4okhqgec3s75h@4ax.com>,
ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:27:15 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>>There are wrongs on both sides. Why do photographers think they have a
>>>moral right to photograph people?
>>
>>Because the law says they can.
>
>does that make it morally right?
The law is an absolute.
Morals are not. And Yes it is *MORALLY* right.. God told me so :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 9:37 am
From: Chris H
In message <iut725574ui2f3htnkjfek9nqbbr7g84ud@4ax.com>,
ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:24:15 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>>its intrusive, only photographers think it isn't.
>>
>>No the LAW thinks it isn't I have a letter from the government saying
>>so. In fact Several people have similar letters from the Home office
>>and they have been posted around the web
>
>the law may well think so, people having unwelcome cameras pointed at
>them don't generally agree.
Generally they don't mind. SOME people get silly about it. However the
law does not support them.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:51 am
From: Bob Larter
ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:13:04 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Protected from what? - Being photographed? Where's the harm in that?
>
> its intrusive, only photographers think it isn't.
Sure, so you tell the photographer to fuck off. Problem solved.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:51 am
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:22:02 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <hvj725lkahqa8t0e7n7uiro0b10416l5g8@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >what was the crime? taking a photo in a public place is not illegal
>> >unless there's a prohibition for photography.
>>
>> The photographer wasn't charged with taking a photograph. He was
>> charged with something else, and that's been posted here many times.
>> The BTP officer evidently felt that the actions constituted harassment
>> under the Act. It seems like an inappropriate response, but we don't
>> know what went on when the BTP officer questioned the photographer.
>> If the photographer acted like Becker did in Seattle, it becomes more
>> understandable.
>
>uh, what do you mean if he acted like becker? like most normal people,
>becker didn't want to put up with being harassed. unlike most people,
>however, he knew his rights under the law. too bad the cops didn't.
I don't see where Becker was harassed. He took a photograph of Loomis
employees putting cash in an ATM machine. The employees asked him why
he was doing that. Becker refused to cooperate in any way.
Most "normal" people that I know would have answered the Loomis guards
questions and been on their way. Becker seems to be a media whore who
wants a chance to advertise his tee shirts and appear on television
shows. He seems to be delighted by the attention.
>> >> If you consider a police officer who makes an arrest, and the charge
>> >> is later dropped because of insufficient evidence, to be criminal,
>> >> then almost every police officer in any jurisdiction is a criminal.
>> >
>> >that's silly. if they arrest someone with articulable cause, it's not
>> >criminal.
>>
>> "Articulable cause" pertains to detainment for questioning. It's not
>> an arrest. It's not a charge, either. It's something the officer
>> must provide to justify the detainment. It simply means "I can
>> explain why I felt it was proper to require the person to answer my
>> questions".
>
>right, and it has to be valid. they can't arrest someone because they
>feel like it. taking a photograph is legal so there's no reason to
>arrest anyone for it unless it's something *else* like poking the
>camera up a skirt.
>
>> >if they arrest someone when there's no evidence to suggest
>> >any crime has been committed, then it can be criminal.
>> >
>> >look at the recent seattle atm case for a *very* clear example of that.
>>
>> Clear example of what? A photographer being detained (He wasn't
>> arrested. No charge was filed.) because he got snarky with the police
>> about being asked why he was taking a photograph?
>
>he was indeed arrested and there's a photo of him being arrested on his
>web site. he had every right to be snarky because they were harassing
>the fuck out of him.
If you are going to make statements, check out the facts first:
Read Becker's own words: # It's not clear (to me and others) if I was
'arrested' or just 'detained' or if the difference is just semantics.
I never said in my post that I was arrested. I said that I was cuffed,
taken out of the store by the cops, put in a police car and put into a
holding cell for some time. Whether that was "arrested" or not, I'm
not sure.
# When I was released from the police station, it didn't seem like any
charges were being pressed against me. But when I tried to get the
police report, I was reminded that charges can be pressed after the
fact. So as of now, nothing more has happened with the police. We'll
see if that changes.
>there was *no* reason to detain or question him. they asked him why he
>took the picture and he said because he can. that's where it should
>have ended. he didn't make a grab for the cash or threaten anyone so
>there was no reason to pursue it. instead, the guards played bully.
You have a "self-confessed anarchist" who acted like a jerk and you
say *he* was bullied.
Here's an account of the incident from:
http://www.switched.com/2009/05/12/seattle-dude-arrested-for-taking-atm-photo-and-for-being-crypti/
(begin quote) After snapping the above photo of a pair of Loomis
employees filling an ATM, self-described straight-edge vegan and
anarchist Shane Becker got himself arrested at a Seattle REI.
While we don't doubt Becker's innocent intentions (apparently, he
snapped the photo out of sheer curiosity), what got the idiot arrested
was likely not the photo, as he claims, but his refusal to cooperate
with the understandably suspicious employees tasked with filling the
machine with cash.
Instead, when asked by the Loomis employees to come over and talk for
a moment, Becker refused to cooperate in any discussion and would not
hand over his ID to anyone: not the Loomis guys, REI security staff,
or the police. This eventually forced the hand of the officer on the
scene, who had to cuff Becker and take him in.
Becker's argument -- that ATM photos and information about their
workings are easily available online -- makes sense, but his failure
to understand any point of view other than his own narrow, deluded one
is pretty inexcusable.
You can check out Shane's own account here, which, even when filtered
through his own self-righteous perspective, still makes him look like
a jerk. Are we being too judgmental? (end quote)
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c04187075ef6f9c5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 9:42 am
From: Chris H
In message <010620091135052429%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <KaekwaRMd8IKFACG@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
><chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> >> There is no OS I am aware of where RAW conversion is an integral part of
>> >> the OS.
>> >
>> >mac os x.
>> >
>> >> Many OS have separate utilities which interface to 3rd party Sw that is
>> >> also not part of the OS that can convert RAW files.
>> >
>> >it's not a separate utility.
>>
>> Do explain
>>
>> so Mac contains the RAW conversion
>>
>> where do I find it on OSX1.4?
>
>you mean 10.4 and it's in the image io framework. here's a summary:
>
><http://developer.apple.com/graphicsimaging/workingwithimageio.html>
>
> The ImageIO framework is the preferred way to work with image data,
> and you should use it in your projects whenever you can. It supports
> a rich set of image formats, including the usual JPEG and other web
> standard formats. It also supports HDR, and raw camera data. For all
> the supported image formats, ImageIO provides the fastest decoders
> and ecoders for the Mac OS X platform.
>
>table 1 lists what's supported in 10.4.8 (which is rather old), and as
>you can see, com.nikon.raw-image and com.canon.cr2-raw-image are listed
>among public.jpeg, public.png and com.adobe.pdf.
>
>over on windows, there's wic, but i haven't done much with that, but
>here's the codec for nikon's 'new' nef format:
><http://www.nikonimglib.com/nefcodec/>
Fair enough.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 9:59 am
From: Bob Larter
Eric Stevens wrote:
> Nope. What comes out of the sensor is not what is saved in the RAW
> file. There is a transformation involved.
What transformation is that? TTBOMK, the only transformation is the A2D
conversion. And that lack of transformations is, after all, the whole
point of the RAW file format in the first place.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:05 am
From: Bob Larter
nospam wrote:
> In article <em7725pf6l64n2vc157k985hj755r5po1i@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
[...]
>> Dingbat - interpolation is an assential part of going from the Bayer
>> array to the RAW data file. Please don't continue to pretend
>> otherwise.
>
> no need to pretend otherwise since that's totally incorrect.
Yes. I'm sorry to be rude here, Steven, but Floyd is 100% correct about
this. RAW data is *not* interpolated. The single biggest difference
between RAW converters is their interpolation algorithms. DCRaw, for
example, has several you can choose from.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:13 am
From: Bob Larter
nospam wrote:
> In article <4a23e366$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He's talking about the *process* of converting from the RAW image to the
>> RGB image that you see on your screen, which includes Bayer
>> deconvolution. As he says, there is no 1:1 relationship between a pixel
>> ("sensel") on the image sensor & a pixel on the RGB image that you see
>> on your screen.
>
> there is a 1:1 mapping of sensels:pixels, although multiple sensels are
> used to calculate one pixel. in other words, 10 million sensels on the
> sensor-> 10 million pixels in the image.
That's the default, but there's no mathematical necessity for the number
of output pixels to equal the number of output pixels. The usual process
of Bayer-interpolating the RAW, monochrome sensor data into a final
colour pixel involves multiple RAW pixels for each one.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:15 am
From: Bob Larter
Doug Jewell wrote:
> RAW (with the exception of the rarely used DNG format) is not a
> standard. Each manufacturer has their own way of laying out the data.
> Furthermore, each model has its own way of laying out the data. Instead
> of the data being set down in a standardised manner, it is very specific
> to the way that particular make and model works.
>
> Because JPG is a standard, you find that almost every piece of software
> ever written that deals with image data can deal with JPG images -
> including the kiosk software that modern digital photo labs use.
>
> RAW on the other hand requires specific decoders. If someone wants to
> put RAW support in their program, they first need to know the details of
> how the particular camera stores its raw files. This information is
> sometimes not freely available, so they need to pay license fees, sign
> NDA's etc. When a new camera comes out they need to update their
> software to support the new camera.
>
> The other thing with RAW is what it stores. Once a JPG is decompressed,
> it contains information that specifies the exact RGB value that every
> pixel in the resulting image has. RAW on the other hand contains the
> readout data from each sensor element. Since each sensor element is
> either Red, Green or Blue, a raw file only has one value for each
> element, not the full RGB value. To get an RGB value to display for
> viewing, it must take that value, and combine it with the data from its
> neighbours to get a full colour value. The proportions of the neighbours
> values, how many neighbours etc that get used to make the final value
> will depend on various parameters such as sharpness, contrast,
> brightness, saturation, white-balance etc. The values of these settings
> that were selected at the time of shooting are stored in the raw file,
> but can be over-ridden. Likewise there is no one right algorithm.
> Different algorithms will yield different results - some may result in
> images with slightly less detail but lower noise, or vice-versa, other
> algorithms may give more accurate colour reproduction, etc.
Nice explanation, Doug.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:16 am
From: nospam
In article <4a240907$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
> TTBOMK, the only transformation is the A2D
> conversion. And that lack of transformations is, after all, the whole
> point of the RAW file format in the first place.
basically that's true, however, nikon did apply white balance to the
raw data in some cameras before writing it to the file (d1 series, if i
recall). i doubt that's what he meant, and as far as i know, it's no
longer done.
not to sidetrack, but the only cameras that actually do a transform are
sigma/foveon. the raw data in a sigma raw file is *not* what came off
the sensor and has gone through quite a bit of processing before being
written to the file (which is kinda funny, given the crazy claims about
it being 'true colour').
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:23 am
From: nospam
In article <4a240c27$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> He's talking about the *process* of converting from the RAW image to the
> >> RGB image that you see on your screen, which includes Bayer
> >> deconvolution. As he says, there is no 1:1 relationship between a pixel
> >> ("sensel") on the image sensor & a pixel on the RGB image that you see
> >> on your screen.
> >
> > there is a 1:1 mapping of sensels:pixels, although multiple sensels are
> > used to calculate one pixel. in other words, 10 million sensels on the
> > sensor-> 10 million pixels in the image.
>
> That's the default, but there's no mathematical necessity for the number
> of output pixels to equal the number of output pixels.
i would hope the number of output pixels equals the number of output
pixels :)
unless you upscale or downscale, the number of input sensels will be
the same as the number of output pixels.
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:20 am
From: Bob Larter
nospam wrote:
>> As a result of these differences, there are comparatively
>> very few programs around that can view/print/edit a RAW
>> file, but they do exist. Theoretically it isn't entirely
>> necessary to convert to JPG/TIFF etc first, although in
>> practice that's how most tools work, because by converting
>> the image to one of the standard formats it then allows
>> greater flexibility.
>
> actually there are quite a few apps that work with raw directly without
> converting it to anything, including lightroom, photoshop and aperture.
They convert it into an 8 or 16 bit/color/pixel RGB bitmap, in memory.
This is the software equivalent of RAW format, but uncompressed.
If you look at the info bar in PhotoShop, you can see how much RAM
they've used to do that. It's normally at least 20-30MB, depending on
your camera. If you save as an uncompressed TIFF file, it'll take up a
similar amount of space on disk.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:22 am
From: Bob Larter
Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 09:21:19 -0400
> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> If your computer supports the format your photos are in, then the
>> photos can be seen. On my Mac, most cameras' raw files are seen
>> without software the same as more common formats such as jpg and gif,
>> NBD.
>>
> That's because the software for displaying various graphics formats is
> built into the MAC file manager, not because there isn't any software
> doing the work.
True. Although the main reason it's possible is because most RAW formats
include a preview JPEG that's easy for a browsing program to extract.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:24 am
From: Bob Larter
nospam wrote:
> In article <2009053111034211272-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>>> the raw decoding is part of the os and is available to *any* code that
>>> supports displaying images. if an app supports reading images at all,
>>> it can get all formats for free, including raw. when the os is updated
>>> for new cameras, then the apps automatically support them.
>> ...and the OS isn't software??
>
> sure, but the point is that any app can read raw files without
> installing anything special. if an app can display jpegs it can
> display nikon and canon raw with no additional code.
RAW files aren't 'pure' JPEG files, even though they usually have a JPEG
embedded in them. The OS needs *something* installed that tells it how
to extract the embedded JPEG file for previewing. Sure, it might not be
much, but there does need to be *something* to do the job.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:26 am
From: Bob Larter
nospam wrote:
> In article <0a3rgQOoR7IKFA0j@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
> <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> There is no OS I am aware of where RAW conversion is an integral part of
>> the OS.
>
> mac os x.
Realy? So you think that every time a new RAW format comes out, a new
OSX update comes out?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:30 am
From: Bob Larter
Mike wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:41:56 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>> isn't Camera Raw PS4s "RAW preprocessor"?
>> it is.
>
> Huh! I may be emboldened into saying something about mosaics at this
> rate.
> I reckon the The spectral transmittance of the CFA thingy along with
> the demosaicing algothingy in the cameras operating system jointly
> determine the color rendition
LOL. But yeah, in general, you're right. The number 1 reason to shoot
RAW is so that you can tweak the colour rendition without losing tonal
range in each colour channel.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:33 am
From: Bob Larter
nospam wrote:
> In article <4a23d178@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a matter of physics & economics. Processor power on a big,
>> mains-powered PC with a ton of RAM is always going to be better than
>> that available on a small, battery-powered device.
>
> true but the small battery powered device has custom hardware that is
> designed to do the processing fast.
In practice, the 1000 MIPS CPU on your desktop can beat the
battery-powered custom hardware every time. It's pure physics.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:45 am
From: nospam
In article <4a240f5a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There is no OS I am aware of where RAW conversion is an integral part of
> >> the OS.
> >
> > mac os x.
>
> Realy? So you think that every time a new RAW format comes out, a new
> OSX update comes out?
they're either added in the free dot upgrades or they issue a separate
raw camera support update.
<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1475>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: damsel fly ....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f05acdbde3658901?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 9:46 am
From: thepixelfreak
On 2009-06-01 03:18:16 -0700, yawn... <none@none.com> said:
>>
>> i took a damsel (dragon) fly on a stone ... i think it´s my best
>> picture ever ....
>>
>
> (a common damselfly, not dragonfly)
>
> Best ever? I take it then that you've only been doing photography for a day
> or two?
>
> Don't quit your fast-foods day job just yet.
Could you possibly be a bigger asshole?
--
thepixelfreak
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:44 am
From: Bob Larter
Mr. Mart. wrote:
> i took a damsel (dragon) fly on a stone ... i think it´s my best
> picture ever ....
>
> see the link
>
>
> http://naturfotografie-und-makrofotografie.googlegroups.com/attach/2fe951028b3ed7ed/SG103709.jpg?view=1&part=2&hl=de
Well, the colours are nice.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:47 am
From: Bob Larter
yawn... wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 01:29:59 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Mart."
> <mart.schroeder@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> i took a damsel (dragon) fly on a stone ... i think it´s my best
>> picture ever ....
>>
>
> (a common damselfly, not dragonfly)
>
> Best ever? I take it then that you've only been doing photography for a day
> or two?
>
> Don't quit your fast-foods day job just yet.
>
>
>
> Helpful advice to all beginner wannabe snapshooters out there:
>
> Do NOT post your lame beginner's photography exercises to the internet and
> then expect everyone else to fawn all over them. If you must, at least keep
> it confined to Flickr newsgroups where fellow morons like yourself are more
> than happy to be entertained by, and applaud, your crap snapshot exercises.
> Go ahead, enjoy your remedial snapshots, it's the only way that you're
> going to learn, but don't expect everyone else to jump up and down just
> because you finally rode your bike for two meters without falling over this
> time. A great milestone for you, no doubt, one of which you are quite
> proud. But to the rest of the world? You're wasting our time and bandwidth
> until you do something worth seeing.
>
> And PuhLEAZE abstain from adding pretentious copyright watermarks that make
> your remedial photography exercises even more painful to view. Do you
> honestly think someone would want to steal or have use for your beginner's
> exercises?
>
>
> This is what we get for insecure "permissive" parents that demanded that
> their schools and teachers hand out awards at weekly ceremonies because
> their idiot kids finally learned to wipe the snot off of their noses. Now
> those children expect an award ceremony every time they wipe their asses
> with whatever they do in life. These emotionally crippled kids want the
> rest of the world to keep applauding them for it.
>
> Ooo look! Bobby made a Picasso on his toilet paper again! Give him another
> gold star! It's the only way that he's going to get healthy self-esteem!
>
> Three generations of children, permanently crippled, turned into morons,
> and the rest of us now have to suffer for their parents' collective
> insecurity, ignorance, and stupidity.
>
> They all make me want to vote for global-sterilization, as soon as
> possible.
LOL. Okay, I'll admit that I actually enjoyed this post.
Too bad you can't produce any of your own pictures to show us how
'special' you are.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Ultimate Photo-Bag
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d379eb3ce3f36aff?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:02 am
From: Paul J Gans
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Garrison K. <gk@another.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 01:52:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com>
>wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2009-05-31 10:05:37 -0700, Alan Browne
>>>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31-05-09 08:41, Robert Coe wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:09:12 -0400, Alan Browne
>>>>>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> : Peter wrote:
>>>>>> :> "Alan Browne"<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>> :> news:wemdnUYIivEdmJLXnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> :>
>>>>>> :>
>>>>>> :>> And really, shouldn't you grab your pregnant wife's ass in a
>>>>>> portrait?
>>>>>> :>> After all they are half nude.
>>>>>> :>
>>>>>> :> Look closely at their faces. She may be his sister, not his wife.
>>>>>> :> Oops! OTOH they may be in Applachia.
>>>>>> :
>>>>>> : I really don't think terms like sister/brother/cousin/uncle/aunt are
>>>>>> : used the same in Appalachia as we use them... I saw a side splitting
>>>>>> : video of a guy from Arkansas, singing, trying to explain his family
>>>>>> tree.
>>>>>> :
>>>>>> :>> The Anglican priest in shorts with the kid choking mommy is
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> :>> great as long as you have some sense of humour.
>>>>>> :>>
>>>>>> :>
>>>>>> :> Whenever will you Aussies learn there is only one "u" in humor.<G>
>>>>>> :
>>>>>> : We Canadians are a confused lot and we use or drop the "u" at will.
>>>>>> : Tell ya what though, when you yanks learn to write something as simple
>>>>>> : as the date properly I'll change my "colours".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That from someone who thinks Arkansas is in Appalachia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Close enough. I was really referring to the notion that people in the
>>>>> Appalachian region and surrounding states such as Arkansas have
>>>>> somewhat confused family trees.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the geography tip though. I always think of Arkansas as
>>>>> further east than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> But as to comparative geographic knowledge I will blow away 9 out of
>>>>> 10 Americans. And so would a 10 year old in Poland or S. Korea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, the American practice of writing the date in month-day-year
>>>>> order would only hilariously stupid if it weren't for the fact that it
>>>>> leaks out of the US to confuse everyone else.
>>>>
>>>> Strangely enough the US military convention is dd/mm/yy.
>>
>>>At least that makes sense.
>>
>>I have adopted the habit of writing the date as, say 31 May 2009.
>>That's both unambiguous and clear as well as being a self-defining
>>format.
>Yet, every operating system that I know sorts by numeric YYYY MM DD c.e. as
>default. So I assign all my photo-folders in the same "it finally makes
>sense" convention. I might temporarily reside in the USA, but I still sign
>all documents and checks that way. It makes more perfect sense than the
>regional moronic fool's conventions. Let the idiots and fools figure out
>why I sign checks with YYYY MM DD c.e.. Hopefully, some day, they might
>catch up to "it's obvious, you fucking morons and idiots! Get a fucking
>clue!"
>Just because I was taught their stupidity in school doesn't mean that I
>have to adhere to their stupidity.
Of course. I do the same thing with anything that might be
sorted via computer. Human Sort(tm) doesn't mind having the
year last.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to hold and carry a camera with a heavy lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/35d5d71e3cce87b4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:16 am
From: George Kerby
On 6/1/09 10:01 AM, in article h00ql6$4e9$1@qmul, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4a23cade@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>> Then, there is "Duck Tape"...
>>> <http://www.ducttapeguys.com/duckvsduct.html>
>>
>> Duct tape is silver, Gaffer tape is black. (Mostly)
>>
>
> I wonder if duck tape was ever used for securing a duck and why.
>
> I wonder if self amalgamating tape any use for photographers and their
> equipment
> as a replacement for duct tape, it's mainly used by plumbers, but tends to
> be a bit messy.
>
>
>
Go to my URL that I posted above. A history is given.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hey Noons, Has it Really Been 6 Months?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8df2a8096dc7b7ba?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:40 am
From: Bob Larter
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 30-05-09 23:16, Annika1980 wrote:
>>> Has it really been 6 months since Noons was dissing on the new Canon
>>> 5D Mark II?
>>> "It's a crap sensor," he said.
>>> "I wouldn't have one if it was free," he said.
>>> "Look at this boat pic ..... it's terrible," he said.
>>>
>>> Well Loons, here's one I took today just for you.
>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/113159283/original
>>>
>>> [Note: This is a BIG photo. Actual size for your viewing pleasure.]
>>>
>>> A boat speeding down the river captured handheld from a couple of
>>> hundred yards by one of those crappy Canon consumer lenses.
>>> If those folks were wearing watches you'd know what time it is.
>>>
>>> I think I'll keep the Fab 5D2.
>> Thanks Bret.
>>
>> 2 things about that photo:
>>
>> 1. Noise in the BG (dark green areas) is similar to the Sony a900 at ISO
>> 200.
>>
>> 2. Everyone in the boat looks totally relaxed, except the kid driving
>> it. Looks like she's being attentive and careful. Warms my heart to see
>> kids being responsible when driving the boat around.
>>
>
> 3. Disturbing. The dude at the back seems proud to be a fatty fucker.
Jeez, they're all pretty porky, if it comes to that.
Other than that, not bad shot, Brett.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photos of event
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ca1c8204b4924c9e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:43 am
From: Bob Larter
Miguel wrote:
> Hello, recently I have just participated in an interesting event, and I
> selected these photos.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3583599725/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3584413624/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3584420394/
>
> It would be interesting to know its appreciations about photography.
Hrm. It doesn't help that I'm not religious, I'm sure, but I'm afraid
that each of these shots was pretty uninspired. Try looking at some
stained-glass work to learn how to work with colour & composition.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
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