Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 8 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best Picture of the Month
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2b9f33c72f8fb935?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 11:36 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)

In article <h1b6ol$5rf$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
>In article <C65E7174.2D02D%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
> <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>On 6/16/09 6:07 PM, in article h198k6$83d$1@aioe.org, "BF"
>><Bfor@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>> GregS wrote:
>>>> http://zekfrivolous.com/penguins/CrosbyCupcrop.JPG
>>>>
>>>> greg
>>> I got my picture taken with the cup. To me that is the best picture of
>>> the month.
>>Cup? What 'cup'?!? Isn't that the new Canon 10,000mm FD "L" that they're
>>holding?!?
>>
>
>I was trying to identify it myself.
>

For the now famous, priest in the window trick, watch from the same camera
of the stills..................clearer than on You Tube..........................
http://zekfrivolous.com/penguins/MOV00775.MPG

66MB.

I was not there.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHDK P&S Cameras Soar Above All Others Again - Photos From the
Stratosphere - Again
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/481ec56ed2cf8bd2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:28 pm
From: "Pete D"

"P&Ss Win Again & Again" <howsthat@andyouarewho.com> wrote in message
news:9kbh355o78b20kpu5rugm8l32fhtjnhbol@4ax.com...
>
> http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,3766.0.html
>
> Not too shabby for a $138 camera and a simple script that runs within it,
> using the free software add-on CHDK.
>
> Quick to freeze-up brick cameras must be left on the ground, gathering
> sensor-dust on shelves -- again.
>

Actually it has been done by a D-SLR plent of times and with much better
results.

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2008/07/28/pentax-k10d-in-space/

Cheers.

Pete

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:22 pm
From: For DSLR Doofi

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:28:01 +1000, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
>"P&Ss Win Again & Again" <howsthat@andyouarewho.com> wrote in message
>news:9kbh355o78b20kpu5rugm8l32fhtjnhbol@4ax.com...
>>
>> http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,3766.0.html
>>
>> Not too shabby for a $138 camera and a simple script that runs within it,
>> using the free software add-on CHDK.
>>
>> Quick to freeze-up brick cameras must be left on the ground, gathering
>> sensor-dust on shelves -- again.
>>
>
>Actually it has been done by a D-SLR plent of times and with much better
>results.
>
>http://blog.flickr.net/en/2008/07/28/pentax-k10d-in-space/
>
>Cheers.
>
>Pete
>

Where's the video footage? Seems to be missing. How much did that flight
cost? I see no evidence of better results. Image quality from both cameras
is just about identical with the DSLR's kit-lens, could actually be worse
on the DSLR if it was used wide-open. The DSLR only managed to snap off 300
photos too. That's a far cry from the 1,000 photos and 4 videos done by a
$138 camera. There is one thing interesting though, the DSLR owner was
stupid enough to let the balloon go on a day with tons of cloud cover.
Let's hear it for the intelligence of DSLR owners. Right on par with all
other evidence of "intelligence" that I've witnessed from all DSLR owners.

LOL ... interesting comments found about this Pentax flight.

"Since the camera and lens were so cold from the extreme altitude,
condensation started forming on the lens shortly before landing. (It was a
very humid day here since it rained the day before) The camera and lens
were soaked with condensation, but kept happily fireing away with no
problems other than you couldnt see through the water on the lens."

Yeah, DSLRs are SO wonderful! If he had taken the lens off then the shutter
and mirror would have frozen up solid or taken a day to dry out to use it
again, the focusing screen also clouding up solid. Good thing he wasn't
using it near the arctic circle and had to change lenses. LOL!!!! Been
there, done that, never again will I own a DSLR POS total waste of money,
plastic, metal, and glass. Good thing he didn't open up the lens before
lift-off or it would have clouded up and froze-up solid before it even got
up in the air with all that humidity trapped inside. Had to be dumb luck on
his part because he certainly wasn't showing any intelligence with all that
cloud-cover.

Here's another fun quote from this DSLR Doofus:

"Just an update for those that were interested in the second flight of the
k10d. We flew today, but unfortunately the new remote cut-down system we
were testing malfunctioned after the balloon reached only 2990 ft, and the
whole system came down in an apartment complex. The lens side hit first on
concrete."

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:41 pm
From: "Deep Reset"

"For DSLR Doofi" <fdd@fdd.com> wrote in message
news:gehi351gdaaqa0ujjhn4f2ine1duog9gab@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:28:01 +1000, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"P&Ss Win Again & Again" <howsthat@andyouarewho.com> wrote in message
>>news:9kbh355o78b20kpu5rugm8l32fhtjnhbol@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,3766.0.html
>>>
>>> Not too shabby for a $138 camera and a simple script that runs within
>>> it,
>>> using the free software add-on CHDK.
>>>
>>> Quick to freeze-up brick cameras must be left on the ground, gathering
>>> sensor-dust on shelves -- again.
>>>
>>
>>Actually it has been done by a D-SLR plent of times and with much better
>>results.
>>
>>http://blog.flickr.net/en/2008/07/28/pentax-k10d-in-space/
>>
>>Cheers.
>>
>>Pete
>>
>
> Where's the video footage? Seems to be missing. How much did that flight
> cost? I see no evidence of better results. Image quality from both cameras
> is just about identical with the DSLR's kit-lens, could actually be worse
> on the DSLR if it was used wide-open. The DSLR only managed to snap off
> 300
> photos too. That's a far cry from the 1,000 photos and 4 videos done by a
> $138 camera. There is one thing interesting though, the DSLR owner was
> stupid enough to let the balloon go on a day with tons of cloud cover.
> Let's hear it for the intelligence of DSLR owners. Right on par with all
> other evidence of "intelligence" that I've witnessed from all DSLR owners.
>
> LOL ... interesting comments found about this Pentax flight.
>
> "Since the camera and lens were so cold from the extreme altitude,
> condensation started forming on the lens shortly before landing. (It was a
> very humid day here since it rained the day before) The camera and lens
> were soaked with condensation, but kept happily fireing away with no
> problems other than you couldnt see through the water on the lens."
>
> Yeah, DSLRs are SO wonderful! If he had taken the lens off then the
> shutter
> and mirror would have frozen up solid or taken a day to dry out to use it
> again, the focusing screen also clouding up solid. Good thing he wasn't
> using it near the arctic circle and had to change lenses. LOL!!!! Been
> there, done that, never again will I own a DSLR POS total waste of money,
> plastic, metal, and glass. Good thing he didn't open up the lens before
> lift-off or it would have clouded up and froze-up solid before it even got
> up in the air with all that humidity trapped inside. Had to be dumb luck
> on
> his part because he certainly wasn't showing any intelligence with all
> that
> cloud-cover.
>
> Here's another fun quote from this DSLR Doofus:
>
> "Just an update for those that were interested in the second flight of the
> k10d. We flew today, but unfortunately the new remote cut-down system we
> were testing malfunctioned after the balloon reached only 2990 ft, and the
> whole system came down in an apartment complex. The lens side hit first on
> concrete."
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!

I love your cogent, irrefutable arguments, but someone has to tell you -
your exclamation mark key is stuck.
It sort of makes you look like a 15 year-old chat-room (hey! who remembers
them?) user.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 3:59 pm
From: sedrat-almontha

Merits of Islam in the Relationship Between Men &Women
I am happy to be a member of this group and I consider you my friends.
As a friend , I like to share with you some thoughts that I believe
will be useful for your life.

Merits of Islam in the Relationship Between Men &Women

1- Islam encourages marriage to prevent committing adultery, and
considers marriage to be one of the ways of the Messengers;The
Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "O
young people, whoever among you can afford to get married, let him do
so, for it helps one to lower the gaze and protect the private parts
(i.e., remain chaste). Whoever cannot afford it, let him fast, for it
is a protection for him." 2- If a man wants to get married but is
unable to spend on a wife, then he should adhere to the words of Allah.
24:33 "And let those who find not the financial means for marriage
keep themselves chaste, until Allâh enriches them of His Bounty"
3- Islam urges people to get married, and prohibits celibacy and
castration. It is forbidden to forego getting married even if the
intention is to devote oneself to worship. "There is no monasticism in
Islam." because they are against his nature, and against having
children.

4- Islam forbids adultery for the sake of reserving lineages, and to
prevent unlawful pregnancies and social problems.17: 32. And come not
near to the unlawful sexual intercourse. Verily, it is a Fâhishah
[i.e. anything that transgresses its limits (a great sin)], and an
evil way (that leads one to Hell unless Allâh forgives him).

5- Islam forbids accusing others of adultery and considers it a great
sin. 24: 15. When you were propagating it with your tongues, and
uttering with your mouths that whereof you had no knowledge, you
counted it a little thing, while with Allâh it was very great.

6- Islam prohibits a man to be alone with a woman who is not a
relative he can't marry, because that causes temptation to do immoral
and evil actions. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him) said: "No man is alone with a (non-mahram) woman but the Satan is
the third one present."

7- Islam forbids unlawful sexual relationships and marrying a woman
not chaste.5: 5. Made lawful to you this day are AtTayyibât [all kinds
of Halâl (lawful) foods, which Allâh has made lawful (meat of
slaughtered eatable animals, etc., milk products, fats, vegetables and
fruits, etc.). The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals, etc.) of
the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and
yours is lawful to them. (Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women
from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the
Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time.

————————–
For more information about Islam

http://english.islamway.com/

http://www.islamhouse.com/

http://www.discoverislam.com/

http://www.islambasics.com/index.php

http://english.islamway.com/

http://www.islamtoday.net/english/

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/MainPage/indexe.php

http://www.sultan.org/

http://www.islamonline.net/

Imanway.group@gmail.com

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:23 pm
From: Jürgen Exner

sedrat-almontha <sedratalmontha@gmail.com> wrote:
>Merits of Islam in the Relationship Between Men &Women
>I am happy to be a member of this group and I consider you my friends.

Friends don't let friends spam newsgroups.

*PLONk*

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

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:38 pm
From: John Navas

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:54:25 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <170620091054254956%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <216i35h03rdnnbgov5qm7u6ge20r4ua6ig@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >you don't see a problem with a store that says it's from maine that
>> >isn't actually in maine?
>>
>> Nope. No deep dark secret, and Abe did start in Maine.
>> See About Us <http://www.abesofmaine.com/aboutUs.do>
>
>they did, and they *had* to leave maine because of shady business
>practices, according to someone i've known for 20+ years who owns a
>camera store in the new england area.

Abe's actually has a good reputation:
<http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Abe_s_of_Maine>

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

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:42 pm
From: nospam

In article <eehi35dsad9nfbfi43k42e23sk1q3hvnir@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >> >you don't see a problem with a store that says it's from maine that
> >> >isn't actually in maine?
> >>
> >> Nope. No deep dark secret, and Abe did start in Maine.
> >> See About Us <http://www.abesofmaine.com/aboutUs.do>
> >
> >they did, and they *had* to leave maine because of shady business
> >practices, according to someone i've known for 20+ years who owns a
> >camera store in the new england area.
>
> Abe's actually has a good reputation:
> <http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Abe_s_of_Maine>

not as good as b&h:

<http://www.resellerratings.com/store/B_H_Photo_Video_Pro_Audio>

and i was referring to why they left maine 20 years ago, not what's
going on now.

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:07 pm
From: John Navas

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:42:17 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <170620091242173204%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <eehi35dsad9nfbfi43k42e23sk1q3hvnir@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >you don't see a problem with a store that says it's from maine that
>> >> >isn't actually in maine?
>> >>
>> >> Nope. No deep dark secret, and Abe did start in Maine.
>> >> See About Us <http://www.abesofmaine.com/aboutUs.do>
>> >
>> >they did, and they *had* to leave maine because of shady business
>> >practices, according to someone i've known for 20+ years who owns a
>> >camera store in the new england area.
>>
>> Abe's actually has a good reputation:
>> <http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Abe_s_of_Maine>
>
>not as good as b&h:

[shrug]

>and i was referring to why they left maine 20 years ago, not what's
>going on now.

And provided zero backup for your wild claim. ;)

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

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:21 pm
From: tony cooper

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:42:17 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I think that B&H has as good a reputation as any online seller, but
buying decisions are based on reputation *and* price. At any given
time, one of the better vendors has a better deal on some item than
the other vendors do. If you are in the market for that item,
shopping that group of vendors can pay off.

If I'm in the market for a big-ticket item, I'm going to compare
prices offered by a relatively small group of vendors. I'd include
both B&H and Abe's in that group.

There's no advantage, in online purchases, to giving any one vendor
your business. You might get treated better in a brick & mortar store
if they know you, but that's not the case with the big camera online
vendors.

My point in bringing up these vendors in my earlier post is that a
newbie buyer like Kris should be told that not all online vendors are
reputable, and that he should not fall for some of the "too good to be
true" prices offered by some vendors. Until you learn the ropes,
Google-searching can be dangerous.

If nospam wants to form his own list of preferred vendors, and exclude
Abe's, that's his decision. Personally, I'm not influenced by some
story about what happened 20 years ago as reported by a competitor.

At one of the meetings of the camera club I belong to (over 100
members), individuals commented on their personal results with
vendors. There were favorable comments about several vendors, but
most of the favorable comments were about Abe's, Adorama, B&H, Cameta,
and Hunt's. (alpha order) Hunt's is one of the sponsors of the club,
so several members have dealt with Hunt's. (B&H is also a sponsor,
but Abe's is not)

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:26 pm
From: "Pete Stavrakoglou"

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:170620091121272242%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <h1bbh6$f8n$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou
> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> >> As I said, it is the only P&S that can give DSLR quality photos. Your
>> >> statement is irrelevant to what I said.
>> >
>> > not anymore it isn't.
>> >
>> > sigma had a year or so being the only large sensored compact, but no
>> > longer. and i expect nikon/canon to join the fun soon.
>>
>> So what other non-interchangable lens P&S has a large sensor?
>
> why does it need to be non-interchangeable?

Because my statement was referring to P&S compact cameras that have a fixed
lens.

> just because the olympus e-p1 has interchangeable lenses doesn't mean
> one *has* to have a collection of lenses and carry them everywhere.
> get the 17mm pancake lens (34mm equivalent) and leave it attached,
> always. put glue on the release button, even.
>
> at least with the olympus, the lens can come off should the situation
> warrant it, rather than the sigma solution which is buy a whole new
> camera.
>
> and that says nothing about *other* large sensored compact cameras that
> might appear, either from the 4/3rds camp or canon/nikon.

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:35 pm
From: Reality Czech

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:42:17 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

You mean how good that B&H got sued up the ass for discrimination of
employees awhile back? That good? Just because they were forced by the
court to pay the lawsuit for their blatant bigotry doesn't mean they
changed their values. It's interesting to see what kind of business values
that you support.

I used to buy gear from B&H, lots of it, until I found out what kind of
people run the place. I don't even browse their website today.

B&H who? Never heard of 'em. Don't want to hear of 'em.

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:46 pm
From: John Navas

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:35:32 -0500, Reality Czech <rc@someplace.net>
wrote in <odki35d1sl63t9mjjmsbjkb94is0jlhaqk@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:42:17 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <eehi35dsad9nfbfi43k42e23sk1q3hvnir@4ax.com>, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>> Abe's actually has a good reputation:
>>> <http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Abe_s_of_Maine>
>>
>>not as good as b&h:
>
>You mean how good that B&H got sued up the ass for discrimination of
>employees awhile back? That good? Just because they were forced by the
>court to pay the lawsuit for their blatant bigotry doesn't mean they
>changed their values. It's interesting to see what kind of business values
>that you support.
>
>I used to buy gear from B&H, lots of it, until I found out what kind of
>people run the place. I don't even browse their website today.
>
>B&H who? Never heard of 'em. Don't want to hear of 'em.

"NY's B&H store settles job bias lawsuit for $4.3M"
<http://finance.yahoo.com/news/NYs-BampH-store-settles-job-apf-14754153.html?.v=1>

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

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:00 pm
From: Matt Ion

On Jun 16, 7:55 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:22:35 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a3701e...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
> >In that case, you'd just switch off the auto-focus, & focus manually.
> >Any DSLR will allow you to do that.
>
> Better compact cameras likewise, with the added advantage of focus
> assist, which magnifies (zooms) the focus point for dead easy, accurate
> focusing.

More and more DSLRs are gaining that capability as well - my 40D will
do in in LiveView mode, with 5X and 10X magnification.

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:03 pm
From: "J. Clarke"

tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:42:17 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <eehi35dsad9nfbfi43k42e23sk1q3hvnir@4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> you don't see a problem with a store that says it's from maine
>>>>>> that isn't actually in maine?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. No deep dark secret, and Abe did start in Maine.
>>>>> See About Us <http://www.abesofmaine.com/aboutUs.do>
>>>>
>>>> they did, and they *had* to leave maine because of shady business
>>>> practices, according to someone i've known for 20+ years who owns a
>>>> camera store in the new england area.
>>>
>>> Abe's actually has a good reputation:
>>> <http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Abe_s_of_Maine>
>>
>> not as good as b&h:
>>
>> <http://www.resellerratings.com/store/B_H_Photo_Video_Pro_Audio>
>>
>> and i was referring to why they left maine 20 years ago, not what's
>> going on now.
>
> I think that B&H has as good a reputation as any online seller, but
> buying decisions are based on reputation *and* price. At any given
> time, one of the better vendors has a better deal on some item than
> the other vendors do. If you are in the market for that item,
> shopping that group of vendors can pay off.
>
> If I'm in the market for a big-ticket item, I'm going to compare
> prices offered by a relatively small group of vendors. I'd include
> both B&H and Abe's in that group.

If it's a big ticket item I'm probably going to walk into B&H, give it a
functional check before I pay for it, and walk out with it in my bag.

> There's no advantage, in online purchases, to giving any one vendor
> your business. You might get treated better in a brick & mortar store
> if they know you, but that's not the case with the big camera online
> vendors.

That's the thing, B&H _is_ a brick & mortar store. If you've never been in
it, it's worth seeing.

> My point in bringing up these vendors in my earlier post is that a
> newbie buyer like Kris should be told that not all online vendors are
> reputable, and that he should not fall for some of the "too good to be
> true" prices offered by some vendors. Until you learn the ropes,
> Google-searching can be dangerous.
>
> If nospam wants to form his own list of preferred vendors, and exclude
> Abe's, that's his decision. Personally, I'm not influenced by some
> story about what happened 20 years ago as reported by a competitor.
>
> At one of the meetings of the camera club I belong to (over 100
> members), individuals commented on their personal results with
> vendors. There were favorable comments about several vendors, but
> most of the favorable comments were about Abe's, Adorama, B&H, Cameta,
> and Hunt's. (alpha order) Hunt's is one of the sponsors of the club,
> so several members have dealt with Hunt's. (B&H is also a sponsor,
> but Abe's is not)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Transforms Your Digital Photos Into Beautiful, Professional Quality
Pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd6cfa525ee3ff87?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:59 am
From: KristFry

Hi! I'm new here.Glad to join this community!

--
KristFry

Fry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KristFry's Profile: http://forums.yourdomain.com.au/member.php?userid=723
View this thread: http://forums.yourdomain.com.au/showthread.php?t=66316

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lenses for canon rebel T1i
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/da6462c3a347e236?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:47 pm
From: John Navas

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:52:21 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <170620091052217473%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <qg6i35hfh2vqke3rf8m3qkhbh62f2mdnph@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> Some are pretty good, but still don't measure up to the best OEM glass
>> in my opinion, which is the only opinion that counts when it's my money
>> being spent. ;)
>
>you are welcome to spend your money however you want, but some of the
>third party lenses actually do measure up in tests.

Single review samples may not be representative of volume production
samples, and don't reflect things like durability. That said, the best
OEM lenses almost always do better in tests.

>> Not really. I might possibly pay a bit more, but that's worth it to me,
>> even if not worth it to you, for quality and confidence in the purchase.
>> If I'm (say) up at the top of Bugaboo Glacier at sunrise, I can't afford
>> to discover that I don't have a good non-OEM lens.
>
>oem lenses fail too.

Sure, but much less often.

>the point is to buy good lenses, regardless of
>who makes them.

Hard if not impossible for the typical user to judge.

>canon/nikon make crappy lenses too.

Usually only in the case of bargain OEM-branded third-party lenses.
I typically buy top grade lenses, never less than middle grade.
You tend to get what you pay for.

>sometimes the
>third parties are better, sometimes not.

Almost always not in my experience.

>the label on the barrel is
>not the only indicator of quality.

But arguably the best one for typical users.

>and if you are going somewhere where you can't afford a failure, you
>would have backup lenses and cameras.

I'm often severely limited in how much gear I can carry along, and
prefer not to have to carry a lot of extra gear just to save a little
frontend money. But as always, YMMV.

>> The moment is
>> priceless, justifying the modest extra cost of the best quality,
>> something I've learned the hard way. (I once had a photo essay rejected
>> by a national magazine for unacceptable image quality caused by a
>> supposedly very good non-OEM lens.)
>
>yea we all have stories. plenty of people use third party lenses for
>magazines, contests, posters, etc. without any problem whatsoever.

Most pros, other than the ones being paid for endorsements, don't.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AT&T Usenet Netnews Service Shutting Down
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2e3799354b816db1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 12:52 pm
From: John Navas

On 17 Jun 2009 18:33:31 GMT, Father Guido Sarducci <don@novello.com>
wrote in <Xns9C2D941F45BE1FatherGuido@198.186.190.61>:

>In message news:nq8f359gtt1g270gane9liidg915nta4fh@4ax.com, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> said:
>
>> In other words, we only have ourselves to blame, for allowing Usenet to
>> be turned into a cesspool of illicit file sharing
>
>Any ISP who wanted to filter binaries groups had the option to do so.

Sure, but that would result in complaints from users.
Might as well just do away with Usenet altogether.

>> and gutter noise (driving away the majority of
>> Internet users).
>
>Usenet NEVER attracted "the majority of Internet users."

And that's a big part of the reason.

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:35 pm
From: Miles

* news-support@sbcglobal.net wrote, On 6/8/2009 16:40:
> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
> offering access to the Usenet netnews service. If you wish to continue
> reading Usenet newsgroups, access is available through third-party
> vendors.
>
> Posted only internally to AT&T Usenet Servers.
>

Received the official word email today -- and two 2nd level techs
didn't know of it less than a week ago even when they checked their
computer!
Miles
Quote:
ATT Orange Banner
Important Updates to Your AT&T Internet Service
Dear AT&T Internet Service Member:

Our records indicate that you have accessed our Usenet newsgroup
feature in the past 90 days. We are writing to inform you that this
feature will be available through July 15. On or around July 15, 2009
we will no longer provide access to the Usenet service. If you wish to
continue accessing Usenet newsgroups, please be aware that many Usenet
services are available for a subscription fee.

Sincerely,

Your AT&T Internet Service Customer Care Team
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE VIA E-MAIL
This address is automated, unattended, and cannot help with questions
or requests.

© 2009 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved.
Yahoo!, the Yahoo! logo and other product and service names are the
trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Yahoo! Inc. AT&T, the AT&T
logo, and all other AT&T marks contained herein are trademarks of AT&T
Intellectual Property.

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:11 pm
From: John Navas

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:11:12 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in
<h1bbju$g3b$1@news.eternal-september.org>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:7hbi35d0a2fe8u3usmlt3dtl1e9upebqlh@4ax.com...

>> Usenet is unquestionably dying, and we only have ourselves to blame, for
>> allowing Usenet to be turned into a cesspool of illicit file sharing
>> (drawing the ire of Eliot Spitzer last year) and gutter noise (driving
>> away the majority of Internet users).
>
>It was a different type of illicit cesspool that Elliot Spitzer was dwelling
>in.

Thanks for catching that -- actually Andrew Cuomo:
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9988278-38.html>
<http://news.cnet.com/the-iconoclast/?keyword=usenet>

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

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:12 pm
From: John Navas

On 17 Jun 2009 18:30:21 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
<79sr1sF1rhqjqU31@mid.individual.net>:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:00:44 -0700, John Navas wrote:

>> A sad commentary on those people. Regardless, this isn't a general
>> website like Google, and the marketing people may simply not be
>> interested in those who will click away after only 15 seconds, focusing
>> instead on those who want the full experience. It's called "focusing on
>> the target market" and "qualifying the prospect".
>
>It's also called "limiting your prospective client list".

You have more marketing expertise than they do? ;)

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

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:16 pm
From: daveFaktor

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:33:55 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> <D%0_l.43518$OO7.31740@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>> []
>>> In other words, you could easily mute the sound, but you choose not
>>> to. Whether it is inconsiderate or not is a matter of opinion. What
>>> you choose to do only serves to hurt yourself.
>> No, I cannot mute the sound from that site alone, without affecting the
>> sound I may wish to have from other sites or from other functions on my
>> computer.
>
> Damn! Now there's a problem! LOL
>
>> Those pages are an example of poor Web-site design,
>
> In your opinion.
>
>> and one I
>> will not view.
>
> Suit yourself, but that only serves to hurt yourself.
>

David is right John...
Force feeding sound that can't be turned off interferes with a user who
is already listening to their own music. Very unthoughtful of them to do it.

I learnt in 1998 that such poor design did more damage to your visitor
count than having no sound at all. It seems you don't care about the
personal comfort of web site visitors. That's OK. Maybe you don't have
top ranking web sites you rely on for your living.

That is no reason to get abusive at people pointing out the stupidity of
not including a button with about 1 minute's worth of script under it
and in the process, gain some extra visitors from your target audience.

You seem to have a habit of doing this sort of thing. You can cure
boredom by masturbating, you know? You don't have to be a nasty bastard.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 1:28 pm
From: "Pete Stavrakoglou"

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:69ji3558b6ifgtcoa53rtj7koek02mua4t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:11:12 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in
> <h1bbju$g3b$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:7hbi35d0a2fe8u3usmlt3dtl1e9upebqlh@4ax.com...
>
>>> Usenet is unquestionably dying, and we only have ourselves to blame, for
>>> allowing Usenet to be turned into a cesspool of illicit file sharing
>>> (drawing the ire of Eliot Spitzer last year) and gutter noise (driving
>>> away the majority of Internet users).
>>
>>It was a different type of illicit cesspool that Elliot Spitzer was
>>dwelling
>>in.
>
> Thanks for catching that -- actually Andrew Cuomo:
> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9988278-38.html>
> <http://news.cnet.com/the-iconoclast/?keyword=usenet>

I'm not a Cuomo fan, going back to the days when Mariotaxed us at every turn
in NY, but I admire Andrew's tenacity in how he does his job.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 3:58 pm
From: "J. Clarke"

ray wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:00:44 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>
>> On 17 Jun 2009 15:31:16 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>> <79sgi4F1rhqjqU30@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:46:28 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17 Jun 2009 00:43:53 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>>>> <79qsi9F1rhqjqU28@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:42:01 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Loaded in less than 30 seconds for me over 3G cellular.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm seldom patient enough to wait 30 seconds for a page to load. I
>>>>> must KNOW that it has some information I REALLY want. Otherwise, I
>>>>> generally give about 10 seconds and I'm gone. Don't know why folks
>>>>> would intentionally limit their audience like that.
>>>>
>>>> I guess they assume people with normal patience will wait 30
>>>> seconds. ;)
>>>
>>> I expect that if you could actually check on the 'normal patience'
>>> level, you'd find it to be under 15.
>>
>> A sad commentary on those people. Regardless, this isn't a general
>> website like Google, and the marketing people may simply not be
>> interested in those who will click away after only 15 seconds,
>> focusing instead on those who want the full experience. It's called
>> "focusing on the target market" and "qualifying the prospect".
>
> It's also called "limiting your prospective client list".

When I'm shopping for a camera I want to know about the camera, not listen
to music that someone else has selected.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fujifilm S3500
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a5d816609ef59125?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 2:22 pm
From: "david.cawkwell@tesco.net"

Hi group,

I've used a fujifilm S3500 camera and for average everyday stuff it
seems fine.

However I've recently needed to take pictures of house rooms. It seems
to struggle to
get much of the room in.

Is it possible to get another lens for such a camera or do I need a
better camera

that can use a wide angle lens. Any suggestions? I know nothing about
cameras.

What size lens would be best?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 2:31 pm
From: John Navas

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:22:09 -0700 (PDT), "david.cawkwell@tesco.net"
<david.cawkwell@tesco.net> wrote in
<1abc1645-7444-4a4f-a7a6-529841164782@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>:

>I've used a fujifilm S3500 camera and for average everyday stuff it
>seems fine.
>
>However I've recently needed to take pictures of house rooms. It seems
>to struggle to
>get much of the room in.
>
>Is it possible to get another lens for such a camera or do I need a
>better camera
>
>that can use a wide angle lens. Any suggestions? I know nothing about
>cameras.
>
>What size lens would be best?

25 mm
Panasonic DMC-ZS3
<http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_zs3-review/>
<http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ZS3/ZS3A.HTM>

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

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

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