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: Boycott Panasonic cameras - forced proprietary battery use in firmware
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/79623194af1b296b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:13 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2009 11:28:04 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote
> in <7ah5a4F1veu0sU6@mid.individual.net>:

>>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:10:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>> <u93ah6-rd6.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
>>
>>>>I understand that cell phone reception is spotty in the jungle.
>>>>Where, granted, GPS reception is not that easy. Still, people
>>>>are effectively using GPS in the tropical rain forrests, as a
>>>>quick google will show you.
>>
>>> Only with difficulty. Tree cover is an issue.
>>
>>It's very difficult if you don't understand how to use a GPS under
>>canopy. It's much easier if you do. Many of those who rely on GPS in
>>heavily wooded places have taken the trouble to find out how to best
>>use them under tree cover.

> Thank you, but I'm thoroughly familiar with how to use GPS -- I'd even
> be willing to bet that I have far more hours of experience than you do,
> since I routinely use it for marine navigation.

There aren't many trees in the sea :-)

> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this
> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking
> pictures, so would have to make a new fix when the camera is turned on.

Not necessarily. You seem to be unaware of the way such long batterey
life instant response GPS systems can work. They can for example run a
cycle of turning on briefly to maintain lock, so that they can do an
instant hot start when required, without having to be on all the time.

> Or are you suggesting the camera would be draining its battery by
> keeping the GPS turned on all the time, and that users should be
> expected to manually acquire new birds from time to time?

It's also the case that the very latest GPS chip sets consume very
much less power than their predecessors, and wouldn't add much extra
drain to a camera if left fully active all the time the camera was on.

There are plenty of technology options now available to solve these
problems, and sufficient well-established demand for low power fast
response GPS in other applications to fund their development outside
of in-camera market demands.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:17 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:37:23 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
> <2009062509372354666-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom>:

>>On 2009-06-25 09:32:15 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>>
>>> On 2009-06-25 08:48:59 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <hh1745tjupjh5dtbc2ukk8iac6fisli2gm@4ax.com>, John Navas
>>>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this
>>>>> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking
>>>>> pictures, so would have to make a new fix when the camera is turned on.
>>>>
>>>> not necessarily.
>>>>
>>>>> Or are you suggesting the camera would be draining its battery by
>>>>> keeping the GPS turned on all the time, and that users should be
>>>>> expected to manually acquire new birds from time to time?
>>>>
>>>> gps battery drain is minimal compared to other camera functions and
>>>> assuming the gps obtained a fix, perhaps in the morning of a photo
>>>> shoot, the time to reacquire a fix a few minutes later is near-instant.
>>>> plus, there's at least one camera gps device that doesn't need to get a
>>>> fix at all. it *is* instant.
>>>
>>> I am currently using a Promote Systems GPS on my D300:
>>> https://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-GPS.html
>>>
>>> My only complaint is the initial acquire time which can range from
>>> 45sec to several minutes, however once running it provides accurate
>>> fixes even with tree cover.
>>
>>BTW battery drainage when using the PromoteGPS is negligible.

> GPS chipsets in continuous operation will drain a couple of AA batteries
> in 8-16 hours. I personally don't consider that "negligible",
> especially in a compact camera, but as always, YMMV.

Garmin's latest receivers can do a lot better than that while running
a colour display at the same time. And there are ways of using those
chip sets intermittently to get instant hot start without having to be
on all the time, which reduces power consumption a lot more.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:20 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:48:59 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
> in <250620091148596489%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>>In article <hh1745tjupjh5dtbc2ukk8iac6fisli2gm@4ax.com>, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this
>>> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking
>>> pictures, so would have to make a new fix when the camera is turned on.
>>
>>not necessarily.
>>
>>> Or are you suggesting the camera would be draining its battery by
>>> keeping the GPS turned on all the time, and that users should be
>>> expected to manually acquire new birds from time to time?
>>
>>gps battery drain is minimal compared to other camera functions and

> No thanks.

>>assuming the gps obtained a fix, perhaps in the morning of a photo
>>shoot, the time to reacquire a fix a few minutes later is near-instant.
>>plus, there's at least one camera gps device that doesn't need to get a
>>fix at all. it *is* instant.

> There is no such thing as an "instant" fix.
> Anything less than 30 secs is a guess.

So you find the 15 secs warm start often cited for Garmin's latest
receivers (when not using WAAS) to be an exaggeration?

--
Chris Malcolm

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:53 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2009 10:28:07 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote
> in <7ah1pnF1uvl3aU1@mid.individual.net>:

>>But most people use their GPS units in ignorant auto mode, just as
>>most people use their cameras :-)

> There's nothing "ignorant" about using something as it's designed and
> intended to be used. By your definition pretty much everyone is
> "ignorant".

I have a camera with both fully auto and fully manual modes. It's
designed to be used in either way. I have a GPS unit which can be left
to acquire satellites on their own, or assisted manually where there
are problems such as under dense tree cover.

You can't learn how to operate a DSLR fully manually just from the
instruction book, nor can you learn how to operate an advanced GPS
unit fully manually from the instruction book. But both devices were
designed to be able to be used in such ways by knowledgeable expert
users.

I think it is quite reasonable to call someone ignorant who has a
professional quality device designed for expert as well as novice auto
use but who knows nothing beyond the auto use. "Not knowing" is
what "ignorant" literally means.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 6:20 am
From: Chris Malcolm

David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> []
>>>> I'm curious--what are you using? My etrex Vista loses lock on a
>>>> regular basis in Connecticut forests in the summer. Maybe it's time
>>>> to upgrade again.
>>>
>>> I'm using a Garmin GPSmap 60CSx, and I hardly ever see a loss of lock
>>> except inside buildings (although top floors and near windows can be
>>> OK). The unit locks near windows on buses, in cars, near cruise liner
>>> cabin portholes, and even in aircraft (permission obtained, of
>>> course).
>>
>> Thanks. I would get a new one just before the SiRF chips hit.

> .. and now with the MTK GPS chipset, I understand, so possibly even
> better.

Certainly much better battery life. Haven't yet seen good
authoritative performance comparisons. Wise to be a bit cautious of
early model implementation bugs.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 6:29 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> David J Taylor
[]
>> .. and now with the MTK GPS chipset, I understand, so possibly even
>> better.
>
> Certainly much better battery life. Haven't yet seen good
> authoritative performance comparisons. Wise to be a bit cautious of
> early model implementation bugs.

That's good to hear, Chris. I would be interested to see some comparative
life figures once any bugs are ironed out. Trouble is, I wouldn't want to
go away from my GPSmap 60CSx as I rather like the control arrangement
compared to come of the newer models. GPS in camera would be nice....

Cheers,
David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1415c1c3e6a92134?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:14 am
From: Karl Thompson

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:40:33 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:22:36 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> The loss of context is annoying, to me, at least. Threading back
>> through previous posts is quite time consuming, while skipping to the
>> end of a post is quite easy, at least with my newsreader.
>
> You're so obtuse at times, Ron. I never said or implied that any
>useful context should be trimmed.

Well, let's fix that then:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:50:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Plastic? Thermal expansion of plastic is much greater than metal and
>it could very well be why we are seeing focus issues that need "lens
>re-calibration" at service depots or that we see the need for in-
>camera focus fine-tuning. Even cameras and lenses that appear to be
>metal today may have plastic cells holding lenses, components in
>cameras. The cameras are produced in a control temp environment but
>that isn't real life use where temps can vary by 10's of degrees. I
>don't remember all metal AF SLRs needing focus fine-tuning (or having
>that facility) in the film days.

The top #1 reason for so many focusing errors:

Idiots who have become dependent on automated focusing systems. Especially
those snapshooters who are so stupid as to justify their common user-error
by blaming it on materials, focusing systems, or camera designs.

Do you honestly think that any automatic focusing system in the world is
ever going to be smart enough to figure out if you want the leading edge of
that small-butterfly's wing, the antennae, or the further wing edges in
precise focus?

There's only so much that any auto-anything system will ever be able to do.
This is why you have Snapshooters and Photographers. No photographer worth
his salt will ever depend on any automated focusing system. Nor do they
ever expect that some point and shoot feature in any camera, all DSLRs
included, should be expected to do the work correctly for them. They know
better. Do you ever wholly depend on your camera's automatic metering
system too? That makes you a point and shoot Snapshooter, whether you use a
P&S camera or DSLR. Every real photographer on earth knows that the camera
will never be able to select the proper exposure for them. That's why they
like cameras with a handy EV compensation dial or toggle, always at the
ready. The camera might get you in the ballpark for focusing and exposure
settings but then you have to take it from there. That's what real
photographers always do. That's what snapshooters won't ever comprehend.
Instead they would rather loudly proclaim the meager benefits of RAW to try
to recover their badly exposed and color-shifted shots, because they're
nothing but snapshooters in the first place.

People reveal much about their total lack of talent by what they find most
important in their cameras.

Snapshooter-Detection System
_________________________________________

What their camera requires or is already best at = what it really means
when they say it.

High ISO = I don't know how to pan properly to give my photo a much needed
sense of motion and action, nor do I know how to predict when to capture
the right shot at the peak moment. High ISO lets me use very fast shutter
speeds in dimly lit sports-fields so I don't have to do all that, then each
and every one of my shots look sterile and lifeless. So what if all those
masters took all their sports shots at ISOs of 64 or less. Big deal. They
probably didn't realize why you NEED ISO3200, or even know what they were
doing and why they were doing it. But *I* do! Because I'm so much better at
photography than they ever were.

High-Speed Burst Rates = I can't get any shot for the life of me, ever. Nor
do I ever know when to shoot an image. I can now machine-gun my way through
life and see if I can find any so-so photo later in my talentless pile of
garbage. Sure, the loud sound of my camera is annoying as hell to everyone
for a block around, but so what? Only PRO photographers with PRO cameras do
what I do. We don't care about anyone else as long as we get some good
photos ..... someday.

Fast Auto-Focus = Huh? You're supposed to know how to focus these damn
things too or know what part of your subject that you want in focus? Go on.
You must be kidding me. You're insane. NOBODY who is a real photographer
EVER focuses their own cameras these days! My camera knows EXACTLY what I
want in focus! Besides, my camera has an optical viewfinder! I can tell
exactly what's in focus in that dim tunnel-view image. So what if the
shallow DOF of my camera didn't allow me to see that my main subject was
really out of focus in the small image in my superior optical viewfinder.
It looked like it was, everything around looked like it was in focus, so
shouldn't the main subject be in focus too? It must be an auto-focusing
defect. I bet that's what it was. I'll send my camera in again to have my
auto-focusing system recalibrated. After all, look at how much money I
spent! A camera this expensive shouldn't fail on some simple point and
shoot feature like this. You get what you pay for and I'm going to prove
it! No matter how many times I have to send it in to have its
phase-detection focusing system recalibrated!

Evaluative Metering = Oh, c'mon now. You expect me to be able to tell when
my subject is underexposed due to backlight too? My camera is supposed to
do that for me with all its fancy point and shoot features. Isn't it? ISN'T
IT? You get what you pay for, right? RIGHT?! My camera even relies on a
built-in database of the most commonly lit scenes so my Evaluative Metering
can make the right choice for me based on what every other snapshooter has
ever done before. Surely that MUST be a good system. Right? I don't want to
have to think and reason, I just want my photo done correctly for me by the
camera, based on a database of simple snapshots. That's why I paid so much
for that new point and shoot feature. Only an idiot would buy a camera that
didn't have this.

Fastest Start-up Time = Sorry, but I totally fail to comprehend why any
camera that is ready by the time I touch it and bring it up to my eye is
all the speed it ever needs to have for start-up time. So I buy cameras
with just the fastest, latest, and greatest, then relentlessly try to
justify why I spent $5000 more on my camera gear than anyone else, by
posting about it on-ad-infinauseum in news-groups. Hang on a minute ... my
camera started up just fine, super fast, but let me rummage through my
camera bags and find the right prime lens to use on it, after it started up
so fast. It's in here somewhere, I know it is ... damn, I left that one
back home. Never mind. See how fast my camera started up though? SEE! Now
THAT'S a camera worth buying!

Shallow DOF = I don't know how to compose any scene properly so I MUST
depend on a very shallow DOF, to isolate my subject from the very scene
that gives the subject its reason for being there. Nor do I realize that
for all macro shots I'll never be able to get even a whole flower or insect
in focus. I'm that amazingly stupid. Some idiots talk about how you can
decrease the DOF the very same way if needed by just using longer focal
lengths, but then that would require I change lenses or carry
poorly-figured 10 lb. monster glass that costs over $10,000. Losing my shot
in the time needed to change the lens, then getting dust all over my sensor
so all my shots are ruined. No, I need shallow DOF with the only lens that
I'm willing to carry and keep on my camera all day. I'm actually that poor
at this "photography" stuff. I really don't have one clue about how optics
and well done compositions are related. I'm just so overwhelmed and proud
of how blurry I can make everything! That's the sign of a good camera. The
only kind worth having and paying a small fortune for. REAL PROs even go on
and on about how the blurry parts of their photos are better and more
important than the in-focus parts. They even came up with a name for it,
calling it "bokeh" today, because it's more important than what's actually
in focus in any of their photos. That's the sign of a REAL PRO. Umm ...
isn't it? You know, the same PROs that go on and on about how much detail
is in some other image, because the whole image itself isn't worth talking
about nor worth looking at. You know. Those kind of "PRO"s.

RAW = Yeah? So what if the JPG output from my expensive camera sucks
big-time. So what if I don't know how to set exposure or white-balance
properly. I can shoot any image any way I want and then spend hours trying
to recover something, well, maybe something, from my superior RAW data. So
there! That's why I'm a better photographer than you'll ever be! Even
though all digital cameras made today have more dynamic range than most any
film of the past. Even 1/2.5 size sensors can have 10 stops of dynamic
range, film only 7 stops. So what if those films provided proper exposures
and dynamic range for all photographers for a century because they knew how
to expose them properly in the first place. This doesn't mean that I don't
need more dynamic range. Remember, I don't know how to expose the image
correctly in the first place. I've become dependent on my camera's point
and shoot "Evaluative Metering" system. It's doing it all correctly for me.
Right? Isn't it? OH well. If not, I have RAW to try to recover from my
camera automatically under-exposing or over-exposing all my shots by 3 or
more stops. So there.

Highest Resolution = I never capture any images with any content worth
seeing, but look how sharp and clear it is! Well, the small parts that I
can view at any one time on my much smaller resolution monitor. So what if
it's been proven that even 3 megapixels can rival the best 35mm film. So
what if no publication on earth ever prints photos larger than the pages in
it. So what if no web page shows the "large size" selection over 1024
pixels wide or high. So what if I do have the full resolution original
image and I can never view it on any monitor that exists on earth at full
view at 1:1 resolution. So what if that award-winning image can be fully
appreciated in just 640x480 pixels on my monitor because the content is so
striking and the original resolution really means nothing. I can even make
poster-size prints of my snapshots that nobody else ever wants to look at!
Besides, the most important use of all -- if really lucky I can crop out
something interesting from my snapshot that royally-sucked when I first
shot it. I'm that bad at photography that I don't know how to compose a
good shot worth viewing or printing in the first place. All that useless
and unnecessary resolution in my hands is what makes me a PRO! You're not a
PRO unless you choose the same camera as I have! No PRO would ever use
anything less. I read all about that on the internet so it must be true.
Right?

_________________________________________

The list goes on and on. All you have to do is stop to realize why they
NEED those camera features. Each and every time it points directly to them
being nothing but a talentless-hack, point and shoot, snapshooter; or total
gear-head, not even a lowly snapshooter; crippled and dependent on their
automated point and shoot cameras.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:28 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Truer Dat" <td@what.com> wrote in message
news:td3745l7ovjsj4j1tos0gjarjj247b6dr6@4ax.com...

>
> The top #1 reason for so many focusing errors:
>
> Idiots who have become dependent on automated focusing systems. Especially
> those snapshooters who are so stupid as to justify their common user-error
> by blaming it on materials, focusing systems, or camera designs.

I guess that's true but I wonder if such people[1] even consider checking
that
the camera is focusing on the image they want. I doubt it as when a person
has brought an auot focus camera they expect it to focus automatically.

> Do you honestly think that any automatic focusing system in the world is
> ever going to be smart enough to figure out if you want the leading edge
> of
> that small-butterfly's wing, the antennae, or the further wing edges in
> precise focus?

Yes in a manor of speaking. The new Apple iPhone, when used as a camera
you touch the screen to select what you want the camera to focus on.
In the near future I expect camera will use this technology in that they'll
store
a picture(s) with varying points of focus a bit like auto-bracking for
exposure
but with focus, you'll then have the option to tape on teh LCD where you
want the
best focus point and teh camera will select that stored image deleteing the
others all done on-the-fly.

>
> There's only so much that any auto-anything system will ever be able to
> do.
I think they will do much more, not that it's really needed by those that
know
what they are doing, but that;s not a good marketing ploy is it.
You supply/offer what people want rather than what they actually need.
Stagnate and die.

> This is why you have Snapshooters and Photographers. No photographer worth
> his salt will ever depend on any automated focusing system.

They will start to depend on it as they have done with internal exposure
meters.
I remember the days when pros and even amateurs didn't 'depend' on the new
fangled
TTL metering systems.

>Nor do they
> ever expect that some point and shoot feature in any camera, all DSLRs
> included, should be expected to do the work correctly for them. They know
> better. Do you ever wholly depend on your camera's automatic metering
> system too?

I think most people do and will use that meter reading as a starting point
at the very least.

>That makes you a point and shoot Snapshooter, whether you use a
> P&S camera or DSLR. Every real photographer on earth knows that the camera
> will never be able to select the proper exposure for them. That's why they
> like cameras with a handy EV compensation dial or toggle,

The EV compensation does rely on an intial reading.

>always at the
> ready. The camera might get you in the ballpark for focusing and exposure
> settings but then you have to take it from there. That's what real
> photographers always do.

And always will, years ago is it was cloudy, sunny or overcast you'd select
an
exposure to suit if you were out a little you'd correct it in the darkroom.

>That's what snapshooters won't ever comprehend.
> Instead they would rather loudly proclaim the meager benefits of RAW to
> try
> to recover their badly exposed and color-shifted shots, because they're
> nothing but snapshooters in the first place.
>
> People reveal much about their total lack of talent by what they find most
> important in their cameras.

Like whether they are Nikon or Canon or Olympus etc....
Or even what shoes they wear, as comfortable shoes are important if you're
taking
photos, bad footwear is painful and may lead you to taking shaky photos.

[1] those that just buy a camera without really understanding the specs.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 7:05 am
From: Ron Hunter

ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:22:36 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>> Intentionally incompetent trimming just makes you look silly.
>>> You've made quite a number of one or two line replies after quoting
>>> hundreds of lines in past posts. Usually only a couple of lines or
>>> a paragraph needed quoting. We both know full well that the bulk of
>>> your quoted lines have not been necessary. To supply newsgroup
>>> newcomers with all of the missing context they'd need (according to
>>> your logic) you'd have to quote the entire previous thread. You're
>>> just stubborn, Ron. But that's not so uncommon in these parts, and
>>> I may have a touch of it myself. :)
>>>
>>> BTW, although I'm not familiar with your newsreader (Thunderbird),
>>> I'll bet that I could use TB and usually do all of the selective
>>> quoting and trimming in a couple of seconds. Anyone with your
>>> computer experience could also do that. As they say, where there's
>>> a will there's a way.
>>
>> The loss of context is annoying, to me, at least. Threading back
>> through previous posts is quite time consuming, while skipping to the
>> end of a post is quite easy, at least with my newsreader.
>
> You're so obtuse at times, Ron. I never said or implied that any
> useful context should be trimmed. You also completely missed the
> point about quoting entire threads. You've never been so out of
> touch as to do that (nor have I ever seen anyone else do that in
> newsgroups) so what put into your head the idea of reading back
> through previous messages in a thread? The point was simply that
> you often quote *much* more material than is necessary to provide
> sufficient context for your replies, and if you feel that there's a
> need to quote even the unnecessary bits, why not take it to an even
> more absurd extreme and provide the supposed context provided by
> earlier replies in the thread. You show that you're trying only to
> find some way to justify your egregious quoting without taking an
> extra second or two to understand what you're replying to.
>
>

I admit that I sometimes miss the point of a post, but then that means
that should I snip, I might make the situation even more confused. My
main concern about snipping is that aside from the issue of time, it
often leads to confusion, or even unintentional (I hope) changing of the
meaning of a post.

>> Perhaps the
>> real issue is that you want me to make life easy for you, at my expense.
>
> Yes, just as you're expected to stop your car at red lights, even
> though it's at your expense (time and wasted gas). You think that
> you're making a logical argument, but it's completely unreasonable,
> unless perhaps you have some anarchist genes, and have no truck with
> the Golden Rule.
>
>

I don't complain about other's lack of snipping... So that doesn't apply.

>> Could I trim as you indicate? Sure, but then I would spend several
>> times as much time each day in newsgroups as I currently do.
>
> That's nonsense, but after repeating it for many years you may
> even believe it by now.
>
>

It's a fact. I spend very little time quoting, and replying, but would
have to spend several times as long editing and snipping. Sure,
snipping with a hatchet would be easy, but would likely lose the whole
meaning sometimes.

>> I have reached an age where I am very aware of the ticking of the clock,
>> and I would rather have my pleasure than spend my seconds of life
>> editing newsgroup posts. If you don't like that attitude, by all means
>> add me to your 'twit list'.
>
> I don't generally use twit lists even though I recognize twits
> when I see them.
>
>

I have a few entries in my filters that are specifically for
individuals, rather for the spam mongers, but very few as I have a
pretty thick skin.

>> Life is way too short to waste doing something you don't need to
>> do, and which gives you no pleasure.
>
> Then why have you been posting so many defensive replies in this
> thread? Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? You've
> used that "ticking of the clock" argument for at least 5 years and
> you're still here. It'll probably be many more years before the
> grim reaper trims your wide butt. Then we'll expect to see "But
> most of all, I did it *my* way" engraved on your tombstone. :)
>

Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? DARN RIGHT!
If I have been using that ticking clock for 5 years, that means I have 5
years less left than when I started it, for certain.
It's summer, and I am not working (substitute teacher for fun and
profit), so maybe I will invest a few minutes snipping, but don't bet
the rent on it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rebel T1i exposure questons
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4f34ea9e0c2655cd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:16 am
From: ransley

I am trying to take a photo of a house in basicly 50% shade with a
section of roof in sun, the section off roof in sun overexposes. Would
the Highlight Priority or Auto Lighting Optimiser help, Would HDR
help. How do I easily set myself up to get even exposures. I am using
factory settings.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:38 am
From: snapper@mailinator.com

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:16:48 -0700 (PDT), ransley <Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am trying to take a photo of a house in basicly 50% shade with a
> section of roof in sun, the section off roof in sun overexposes. Would
> the Highlight Priority or Auto Lighting Optimiser help, Would HDR
> help. How do I easily set myself up to get even exposures. I am using
> factory settings.

Buy a graduated filter.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 6:09 am
From: Chris Malcolm

ransley <Mark_Ransley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am trying to take a photo of a house in basicly 50% shade with a
> section of roof in sun, the section off roof in sun overexposes. Would
> the Highlight Priority or Auto Lighting Optimiser help, Would HDR
> help. How do I easily set myself up to get even exposures. I am using
> factory settings.

Shoot in RAW to get the extra dynamic range, adjust exposure using
histogram display so that the sunlit roof is just under overexposure,
and then boost the shadow part of the tone curve in
postprocessing. Sounds very complicated if you've never done it
before, but quite quick once you're used to it. You may also be able
to do it by using something like a Dynamic Range Optimiser in your RAW
editor, if it has one of those.

--
Chris Malcolm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Running OS X on my PC!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:15 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:ObQ1QlNUW6QKFACN@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <h206b7$st2$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>>> At least PC users are smart enough to do it.
>>
>>A very few are.
> Well that is something we agree on

>>> So what you are effectively saying is Mac users are dumb mindless idiots
>>> that are nothing more than appliance operators.
>>
>>for some people the computer is a tool for producing photos like a lens
>>is the tool for focusing and framing a picture, few photographers make
>>their own lenses and even fewer grind their own optics.
>
> Good analogy... I stopped building my own desktop computers a while back.
I know a few friends that do, and dom for other but it's only when they want
the
best possivble performance, and it takes them a while to research everything
so
that they know which bits works best etc..

>
>>> At least PC users know how
>>> to get around their system.
>>Like a car that constantly breaks downm those users need to know about
>>such
>>things.
>
> Actually "most" PC users don't know.

I guess so, but then again most peolpe I know do have some idea.

>>> If you don't know the basic nuts and bolts of
>>> your computer you shouldn't be allowed to use one.
>>Do yuo know how to program .
>
> Yes. But that is only superficial.

What I meant is that you don;t have to know about the nuts & bolts
in order to use them. I'm pretty sure those that do the the CGI
for film compoaies arent; relly worried that their disc drive is held in
place by 4 M3 screws, or whther their drive is ATA or SATA.
I doubt they'll ever have to manually set IP numbers up.
If they have what they think are hardware problems they'll
phone tech support who'll tell them to turn it off wait a few mins and turn
it
back on again.

>>>How do Mac users fix a
>>> problem, other than upgrading to the next level of proprietary hardware?
>>
>>Usually I fix a problem by getting rid or any Microsoft applications.
>
> Then none of my other applications would work.

I've had photoshop and lots of other things running on a Mac without any
MS software installed.

>
> BTW I run WS Office on the Macs as well as the PCs.

Me too, but the last problem I had on a Mac was because someone had
installed
some fonts 'from word' from their PC to the Mac version.
Cause all sorts of freezes, so I just deleted those fonts and everything was
fine.
The user didnt; remember which fonts, but I was lucky in that the offending
fonts
all had creation dates of April 1st 1976.
I then asked why she wanted them in particular and she said "a friend
gave them to me and we couldn't get them to work on her PC so I thought
I'd try them on my Mac :-0.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:21 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"ribbit" <ribbit@news.group> wrote in message
news:7adjvcF1uk6akU1@mid.individual.net...
> Annika1980 wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 7:14 pm, ribbit <rib...@news.group> wrote:
>>> If you pulled Photoshop from a torrent, it's pirate software. You have
>>> to go looking all over again if you want an OSX version of it. Ask Bret,
>>> he know all about stolen images and pirated Photoshop.
>>
>> That is a bald-faced lie! I have never in my life downloaded a
>> pirated copy of Photoshop for the Mac.
>>
>
> Good one Bret.
> What about that crack you got to make your demo copy run as a bought one.
> Does that not count?

Probably smoked[k] it.

>
> --
>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:37 am
From: Chris H

In message <h22eau$ktf$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:ObQ1QlNUW6QKFACN@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> If you don't know the basic nuts and bolts of
>>>> your computer you shouldn't be allowed to use one.
>>>Do yuo know how to program .
>>
>> Yes. But that is only superficial.
>
>What I meant is that you don;t have to know about the nuts & bolts
>in order to use them. I'm pretty sure those that do the the CGI
>for film compoaies arent; relly worried that their disc drive is held in
>place by 4 M3 screws, or whther their drive is ATA or SATA.

Oh... You really were thinking superficially... I was thinking of HD
controllers, how the caches work (internally) etc

>I doubt they'll ever have to manually set IP numbers up.

I don't use DHCP All ours are set up manually.

>>>Usually I fix a problem by getting rid or any Microsoft applications.
>>
>> Then none of my other applications would work.
>I've had photoshop and lots of other things running on a Mac without any
>MS software installed.

On macs yes but much of my SW won't run on a mac.

>> BTW I run WS Office on the Macs as well as the PCs.
>Me too, but the last problem I had on a Mac was because someone had
>installed
>some fonts 'from word' from their PC to the Mac version.

Never had a problem with that.

>Cause all sorts of freezes, so I just deleted those fonts and everything was
>fine.
>The user didnt; remember which fonts, but I was lucky in that the offending
>fonts
>all had creation dates of April 1st 1976.

Just look for last modification date.

>I then asked why she wanted them in particular and she said "a friend
>gave them to me and we couldn't get them to work on her PC so I thought
>I'd try them on my Mac :-0.

There is one born every.......

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus EP-1 focusing may doom it for DSLR users
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6b39aaf93aed311f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:18 am
From: RichA

Reports show it is apparently very slow. Isn't this one of the
reasons why people dumped P&S's to go with DSLRs? It's a bit odd
though since Panasonic's G1 focusing is very quick.

http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=ep-1+slow+focusing&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:16 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Chris H wrote:
> In message <7mk8459oinbtct2gjf5o7su21kvaji5ig1@4ax.com>, Jürgen Exner
>> [...]
>>> To me, its still up in the air
>>> weather or not it is worth all the trouble it gives me. To be sure,
>>> it does do, or is at least capable of doing some miraculous things,
>>> but at the same time, it generates so many problems that most of
>>> the time I find that I am behind schedule trying to keep up with it.
>>
>> Would you drive a car without receiving proper instruction first?
>
> Many do.
>
> Also ride horses, shoot guns, ride off road bikes, sub-aqua, sail
> boats, drive power boats.
>
>> Would
>> you pilot an airplane without proper training?
>
> Some have....
>
>> A computer is many, many times more complex than a small airplane
>
> Absolute crap Most small aeroplanes have several computers in
> them,... also engines that also have computers on them.

Not the "small aeroplanes" I've flown. At least none that were essential
for flight.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:50 am
From: Jürgen Exner

Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> Would
>>you pilot an airplane without proper training?
>
>Some have....
>
>>A computer is many, many times more complex than a small airplane
>
>Absolute crap Most small aeroplanes have several computers in them,...
>also engines that also have computers on them.

And exactly which computers would that be in your typical C-152/172 or
P-140/160/180, or your typical Lycoming or Continental engine? Not to
mention Aronca or Piper Cub and their breathrens which often don't even
have any electrical system at all? At the time those planes were
designed and built (after all, the largest part of the GA fleet is well
over 30 years old) a computer was still the size of a wardrobe.

The only computer in most small airplanes is the GPS-unit, which
although becoming more and more popular is far from being universally
installed due to the high cost. E.g. a Garmin GNS-530W will set you back
about 12-14000 $US for the unit plus another 5-8k for the installation.
It's little brother, the GNS-430 still goes for 6-7k for the unit and
about the same amount again for the installation.

jue

PPL ASEL, IFR

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 8:06 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C6edncmWUNPwztnXnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:h21j9h$4gn$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2009062520543516807-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> Since you do not seem to actually RTFM to use what is available to you
>>>> and any user, on any computer, PC, Mac or Linux machine, it is probably
>>>> best that you continue to march to your different drum.
>>>
>>> What does, "RTFM" mean?
>>
>> RTFM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>> RTFM is an acronym for the statement "Read The Fucking Manual". This
>> instruction is sometimes given in response to a question when the person
>> being asked ...
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM
>>
>> The above was the first hit when said acronym was typed into the Google
>> search bar.
>
> Oh. This would be good advice, were I to have a F-ing manual, but alas,
> this is not the case. I do not even have the same machine I purchased.
> That one didn't work, so I had to replace the motherboard and CPU chip
> with another one. I do, however, have a good book on Windows VISTA. Now,
> if I only had the time to read it.........

That's one advantage of the Mac OS X you don't really need a manual.
Although I do have a old Audio tape with an Apple logo on it, and I used to
have
14 sets that included an audio tape to instruct the user on how to use a
mouse,
in a rather terrible American accent. Apologies to Americans with such an
accent,
but most people here in London UK found it difficult to stomach ;-)

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 8:14 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AcydnXkyDMKQz9nXnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009062520543516807-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> ...but then live with the consequences of that, and don't complain even
>> after you have been presented with solutions.
>> It is appears you live to complain, and having whatever you use
>> functioning optimally is not something you would put any effort into, as
>> you would not be able to complain about it.
>
> You've got to be kidding......I have spent many hundreds of hours
> reconfiguring my machine to get it to function the way I want it to.

perhaps your next computer should be a Mac. :-)

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 8:22 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a446e26$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

>
> Boot from a clean floppy & "fdisk /mbr" is how I used to do it.

I haven't had a clean floppy for years... ;-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Future of the megapixel race
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c78a5377356e2e48?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 5:44 am
From: Tsk Tsk

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:24:38 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:19:33 -0700, Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net>
>wrote in <93J0m.51989$lB7.32317@newsfe19.iad>:
>
>>I am beginning to feel that lens quality is probably at least as
>>important to image quality as MP and sensor size (within limits of
>>course).
>>
>>In strong sunlite, a good Leica lens with a small (1/2.5" 4MP
>>sensor)can yield a better image than a mediocre lens with a larger
>>(APS-C, 8 MP sensor).
>
>
>From a post I made back in 2007:
>
>> In terms of resolution, the DMC-FZ8 Leica super-zoom actually surpasses
>> the fixed prime Canon EF 50 mm f/1.4 on the EOS D60, 10D, and 300D, as
>> well as the fixed prime Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4 on the Nikon D100, and fixed
>> prime Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8 on the Nikon D50, D70s, and D40:
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page16.asp
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS10D/page22.asp
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD100/page20.asp
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page25.asp
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page24.asp
>>
>> When typical comparable images (lens and exposure) are viewed as
>> intended in the real world (e.g., as 8x10 prints), there is no
>> meaningful difference, and the shot from the DMC-DZ8 will frequently be
>> the better because of handling advantages.

Now stop that!

You know what happens to psychotics when they are forced to face reality.
This is just going to upset their imaginary pretend-photographer's
DSLR-TROLL world again. The least you could do is have them submit a
scanned copy of their current anti-psychotic prescriptions or something, to
be sure they can handle this kind of information. Show them reality in a
responsible manner. This is just reckless of you.

Next time start out more slowly. Maybe with a post like:

"In three days I'm going to show you something that goes against every
DSLR-TROLL post you ever read in your twisted little virtual-reality world.
This will give all of you adequate time to prepare for it. At least consult
your psychiatrist and have them increase your maintenance dosages before
then."

Something like that will at least stop them from cutting and purging. The
way you did it here is dangerous for all of them. No warning, no nothing.
Just a slap upside their demented little heads, right out of nowhere.

WHAM! REALITY! DEAL WITH IT!

SEE? How very unkind and cruel of you. You could almost be reported to the
A.S.P.C.A. for a reckless stunt like this.

But it is nice of you to not throw reality in their face more than once
every 2 years. This is going to keep them agitated that long again. It
takes them at least that long to shrug off any nasty brush with reality.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 6:04 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <250620092124514719%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> it's not guessed, it's precisely calculated,
>
> It's *wrongly* calculated. It's called "interpolation".

Interpolation of the Bayer array is generally well behaved except for
pathological test cases designed to break it. And even then the modern
heuristics for processing the sampled chroma data do very well.

Most real photographic scenes do not push the envelope at all and Bayer
mask images are effectively indistinguishable from Foveon ones.

Provided that the luminance is OK and adjacent pixels are the right
colour the eye tolerates some colour error in an pixel remarkably well.

If you think your eyes are that reliable at judging colour accurately
you may care to look at the following powerful optical illusion:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/24/the-blue-and-the-green/
>
>> and human vision is not
>> that sensitive to colour resolution so you can't see the difference
>> anyway.
>
> Nonsense. Just enlarge the image and you will see the errors.

You are tilting at windmills. The loss of chroma information through
subsampling has only minor deleterious effects. Foveon is a cute
technology but it solves a non-problem. The human eye has a higher
resolution for luminance than it does for chrominance.
>
>> it does depend on the implementation, but absent a breakthrough in
>> physics or manufacturing, it remains true. there's no free lunch.
>
> There is no law of physics stating that a full colour sensor must have
> more noise than a Bayer sensor.

But it must contain at least 2N more active sensor sites and arrange to
filter the light into at least RGB.

Regards,
Martin Brown

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 8:00 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-26 00:37:46 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:

> In message <4A445D01.67BFFFB1@concentric.net>, John Turco
> <jtur@concentric.net> writes
>> Chris H wrote:
>>>
>>> In message <4A3F3E7C.CD50C6E3@concentric.net>, John Turco
>>> <jtur@concentric.net> writes
>>>> Chris H wrote:

>>>>> ----------------<Le Snip>------------------

>> You've answered three of my other responses, within this thread; but, this
>> shall be my sole reply.
>>
>> Suffice to say, basketball and soccer are both quite popular, worldwide.
>> However, in the U.S.A., "gridiron" type football is king, currently -- and
>> ice hockey has long been Canada's "national sport."
>
> Whereas the national sport of very many countries is football.
>
>
>> In these respects, North America may be an "anomaly," as you're previously
>> stated.
>
> It is. In my experience most Americans take what they see in the USA and
> extrapolate it world wide. Whereas in fact most of the time the US is an
> anomoly and the rest of the world (which is a bit larger than the USA
> :-) is different.
>
>
>> Albeit, that doesn't diminish its worthiness, or that of the NFL
>> or NHL, in any way.
>
> Only in N. America outside N.America it is a minority (or non-existant)
> sport.
>
> I would bet that there is more soccer played in the USA than American
> Football (or basball or basketball) is played outside the USA.

If any of you have been following the Confederations Cup, you might
have noticed this Semi-Final result; USA 2 : Spain 0.
http://www.sportingnews.com/soccer/article/2009-06-24/us-stuns-spain-confederations-cup-semis

Regards,

Savageduck

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 26 2009 8:25 am
From: "PDM"

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

Is basketball an American invention? It's been around in the UK for a very
very long time but under the name of netball. The rules are basically the
same. Ditto baseball, in UK called rounders.

PDM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, June 26, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic