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: canon SX10is - max memory card capacity
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a0bc81c99be36e20?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 6:33 am
From: Clair Johnston

yirgster wrote:
> Thanks for your responses, but I'm not sure they addressed what I'm
> concerned about.
>
> That a memory card is available in a certain capacity does not imply,
> by itself, that the camera can support that capacity. I've run into
> this before. E.g., card can be 4GB, but camera only supports a max of
> 2GB.
>
> From your answers I infer that the SX10is will support whatever
> capacity the card has? Is this correct? That is, what is the maximum
> card capacity that the camera will in fact support (and not
> necessarily the maximum capacity of cards of that type).
>
> That's what my question was or should have been, and what I couldn't
> find on the various websites.
>
>
> On Jun 27, 7:04 pm, J rgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> yirgster <yirg.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Max memory capacity for th Canon SX10is?
>>> I couldn't find it anywhere.
>> According tohttp://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sx10is.aspit
>> supports. SD/SDHC/MMC cards.
>>
>> SD is limited to 2GB, SDHC in the current specification is limited to
>> 32GB.
>>
>> jue
>
My wife is currently using a 4G SDHC card in her SX10IS and it works
fine to full capacity. The camera recognizes and writes to my 8G SDHC
card, but we never tied it to capacity. My view, is that unless you are
recording movies, anything over 4G is overkill. I use 8G cards in my
Nikon D300, but that is because I occasionally record in RAW.

I would expect that the SX10IS will work fine with the 32G SDHC cards
unless there is a problem with the card.

Clair

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kodak kills Kodachrome film after 74 years
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ffab234a019b33ac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 6:51 am
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:22:12 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
<rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article
><63bfe121-3d7f-4a71-9936-281acc9077e4@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> writes
>>On Jun 27, 5:13 pm, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> The context added nothing.
>>
>>Only understanding, for those who comprehend what they read.
>>
>>> You were wrong. Stop digging and stand up
>>> like a man.
>>
>>Right. Like you've suddenly been crowned Queen of the Net-Nannies
>
>Nothing to do with Net-nannying, but noting and commenting that you
>don't possess the maturity to admit your mistake even after it is
>spelled out to you, almost in single syllables,

*Almost* in single syllables? All syllables are single. Words can
have one syllable, two syllables, or be polysyllabic, but the
syllables are single units.

> by numerous others.
>Nobody want's to, or is trying to, stop you demonstrating juvenile
>behaviour online, so feel free to carry on.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Any Free HDR software out there
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/493e88d0b6e53bbb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 6:55 am
From: "Ken"

"Neil Pugh" <neil@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:P1TIeQAnX2RKFwYz@plus.com...
> In message <4a476379$0$18239$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, Ken
> <none@none.co.uk> writes
>>Hi
>>
>>I am just trying out the trial of Photomatix but wondered if there is any
>>free stuff out there. Easy to use for a beginner and I don't have
>>PhotoShop just PSP and Ulead software.
>>
>>Ken
>
> http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/index.php
>
> Regards,
> --
> Neil Pugh

Excellent and thanks Neil.

Ken

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 6:56 am
From: "Ken"

"Bill" <carver-rem-33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:f6qe45laj08hvmtvleq9hnkano4n8ccftv@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:35:02 +0100, "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hi
>>
>>I am just trying out the trial of Photomatix but wondered if there is any
>>free stuff out there. Easy to use for a beginner and I don't have
>>PhotoShop
>>just PSP and Ulead software.
>>
>>Ken
>
> Try this:
>
> http://www.elementsvillage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23923
>
> or this:
>
> http://www.shuttertalk.com/news.php?article=7093 (links at bottom)
>
> HTH
> Bill

Excellent and thanks Bill.

Ken

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photomatix & HDR
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/438bde75c5450595?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 6:59 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-28 01:50:33 -0700, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> said:

> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>> reasonable results.
>>
>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> The sky looks great.
>
> The mountains look .... yeah?
>
> But there is something wrong with the trees.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

Thanks for the comment.

I think the problem is the initial lighting issue of having 3
differently lit areas with the foreground, mountains & clouds.

For the 3 exposures used metering was on the mountains, the clouds were
blown and the foreground trees were hidden in shade.

Each of the 3 exposures on their own would have been tweekable in ACR,
but ultimately nothing worth putting the effort into. This was one of
those cases where an ND Grad would have been handy, unfortunately I had
neglected to pack one, so it fell to the HDR experiment.

The tone mapping with Photomatix defaults produced the result above
other than resizing there is no other CS4 adjustment.

I a going to work on the tone mapping adjustments to try and improve
the overall balance.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 7:21 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-28 02:13:46 -0700, "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> said:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009062720315838165-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>> reasonable results.
>>
>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
>
>
> Interesting reading through the posts so far!!!
>
> IMO the only thing that counts is if YOU like the end result.
>
> I like it as it is your first dabble as I am looking at HDR as well.
>
> I like HDR shots but I also like 'normal' shots and for me each have
> their place.
>
> It took me ages to start learning to use normal software and I have
> downloaded a trial for Photomatix but my goodness there are so many
> options that I am getting seriously seriously confused.
>
> Good luck to you and keep on experimenting.
>
> Ken

Thanks Ken.
This is my first real HDR dabble, and it is all part of the Post
Processing learning curve.
I also prefer my photographs to appear "normal" I think HDR presents an
alternate PP option to create a result which is clearly "different"
from normal expectations and is worth looking at.

I resorted to the HDR experiment here as I had neglected to take an ND
Grad on this road trip (another lesson learned there!)
I was presented with a scene which demanded to be photographed, however
the lighting at that time presented me with a 3 exposured problem which
MM could not handle. So I thought it was an appropriate time to try
HDR, and took the three -1: 0; +1 exposures knowing I would have to
work on them later.

I know the tone mapped image which resulted from Photomatix processing
is "different" it is still an exercise in progress. The final result I
get to should (might) be different again, but nothing venture ......

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 7:23 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-28 05:14:24 -0700, Charlie Choc
<charlie.choc@gmail.com.invalid> said:

> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> The WB looks a little off and it looks a little over saturated as well, not
> uncommon with Photomatix if you increase the saturation. One quick fix for that
> is to open it in CS4 and use the 'old style' hue/saturation preset and then
> adjust the effect with the opacity slider until the colors look more normal.

Thanks for the suggestion.
This is part of my HDR learning curve and a work in progress.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 8:04 am
From: "DRS"

"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009062807210578840-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom

[...]

> I was presented with a scene which demanded to be photographed,
> however the lighting at that time presented me with a 3 exposured
> problem which MM could not handle. So I thought it was an appropriate
> time to try HDR, and took the three -1: 0; +1 exposures knowing I
> would have to work on them later.

In that situation Photomatix recommend -2, 0, +2. Their preferred method is
5 images: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. I still don't like their default settings
though, and you really have to play around with them to redecude the
contrast and saturation to something reasonable.

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 8:52 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-28 08:04:05 -0700, "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> said:

> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009062807210578840-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom
>
> [...]
>
>> I was presented with a scene which demanded to be photographed,
>> however the lighting at that time presented me with a 3 exposured
>> problem which MM could not handle. So I thought it was an appropriate
>> time to try HDR, and took the three -1: 0; +1 exposures knowing I
>> would have to work on them later.
>
> In that situation Photomatix recommend -2, 0, +2. Their preferred method is
> 5 images: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. I still don't like their default settings
> though, and you really have to play around with them to redecude the
> contrast and saturation to something reasonable.

Yup, that I know now, I didn't then, so I was working with what I had.

I have been working on improving the result using the suggestions I
have recieved.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:05 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-27 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
> reasonable results.
>
> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>
> Any suggestions?

Thanks to all who have commented, I have taken the suggestions to heart.

I have revisited the problem and have made tweeks in Photomatix
tonemapping and CS4 to come up with this:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-w.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:11 am
From: John McWilliams

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-06-27 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
> said:
>
>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>> reasonable results.
>>
>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks to all who have commented, I have taken the suggestions to heart.
>
> I have revisited the problem and have made tweeks in Photomatix
> tonemapping and CS4 to come up with this:
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-w.jpg
>
>
Both represent good work. I find neither quite right, but it may well be
because I know in advance it's HDR, and so I am subconsciously looking
for reasons it looks at odds with other photos of similar content.

How dark was the mountain face in the 'normal' exposure?

--
John McWilliams

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:20 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-28 09:05:45 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> On 2009-06-27 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>> reasonable results.
>>
>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks to all who have commented, I have taken the suggestions to heart.
>
> I have revisited the problem and have made tweeks in Photomatix
> tonemapping and CS4 to come up with this:
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-w.jpg

and

http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-2w.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:26 am
From: Alan Browne

On 28-06-09 12:20, Savageduck wrote:

>
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1119_20_21_tonemapped-2w.jpg

Has a 1960's postcard look to it. The whites in the clouds here are
often flat burned out.

Just shows that scenic photos should be shot in the morning or late
afternoon, not mid-day. (I know that photography was not your primary
reason for the trip).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Use That POS Photomatix When There's Better Software?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/756bc8a732d2cc09?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 7:03 am
From: Unbelievable

Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or still
stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"? It makes
Photomatix look like MS Paint.

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html

Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the mindless
herd following sheep that you are?

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?

There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out loud.

Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and UGLY
effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software. The
world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images created by that
useless POS programming.

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 7:34 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-28 07:03:45 -0700, Unbelievable <nocontact@noaddress.com> said:

>
>
> Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or still
> stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"? It makes
> Photomatix look like MS Paint.
>
> http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html
>
> Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the mindless
> herd following sheep that you are?
>
> Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?
>
> There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out loud.
>
> Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and UGLY
> effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software. The
> world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images created by that
> useless POS programming.

For once you have actually added something useful to the debate.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 8:05 am
From: "DRS"

"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009062807343444303-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom
> On 2009-06-28 07:03:45 -0700, Unbelievable <nocontact@noaddress.com>
> said:
>>
>> Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or
>> still stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo
>> HDR"? It makes Photomatix look like MS Paint.
>>
>> http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html
>>
>> Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the
>> mindless herd following sheep that you are?
>>
>> Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?
>>
>> There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out
>> loud. Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and
>> UGLY
>> effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software.
>> The world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images
>> created by that useless POS programming.
>
> For once you have actually added something useful to the debate.

And so nicely, too.

I'll have a look at it though. I hope the software is good because the home
page is bloody awful.

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 8:48 am
From: Unbelievable

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:05:50 +1000, "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au>
wrote:

>> On 2009-06-28 07:03:45 -0700, Unbelievable <nocontact@noaddress.com>
>> said:
>>>
>>> Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or
>>> still stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo
>>> HDR"? It makes Photomatix look like MS Paint.
>>>
>>> http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html
>>>
>>> Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the
>>> mindless herd following sheep that you are?
>>>
>>> Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?
>>>
>>> There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out
>>> loud. Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and
>>> UGLY
>>> effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software.
>>> The world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images
>>> created by that useless POS programming.
>>
>
>I'll have a look at it though. I hope the software is good because the home
>page is bloody awful.
>
>

Paint some rouge, lipstick, and a frilly bra on Mona Lisa, maybe you'll
find her attractive.

Is that all it is with you fools? The homepage and software has to "look
purty" or the superior results it can produce doesn't matter? Are you aware
that rarely do the software authors create the websites that sell their
work? Most software authors don't even care who represents it, they're into
the programming, not the cutesy GUI shit that attracts subhuman idiots and
kindergartners like you. Good programmers could care less if their work
pleases you or not, just so long as their method produces better results
than other programmers' methods. That's what drives them, the good ones
anyway, not what moron consumers like you might think of it.

Holy fuck. No wonder companies like Adobe can snowball you so easily. Put a
new pretty cover on shit that hasn't changed one bit in functionality for
over 9 years and you're on it like white on rice.

Go back to your mindless herd mentality where you belong. Your endless sea
of stupid-on-hooves is getting in the way of something called progress.

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 8:53 am
From: Alan Browne

On 28-06-09 11:48, Unbelievable wrote:

> Go back to your mindless herd mentality where you belong. Your endless sea
> of stupid-on-hooves is getting in the way of something called progress.

Please do post your 21 best photos to make us collapse in awe.

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 8:57 am
From: John McWilliams

Unbelievable wrote:
>
> Go back to your mindless herd mentality where you belong. Your endless sea
> of stupid-on-hooves is getting in the way of something called progress.

The fact that you're so interested in prodding such a bunch of dullards
is telling.

Mooooo.

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:02 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-28 08:05:50 -0700, "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> said:

> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009062807343444303-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom
>> On 2009-06-28 07:03:45 -0700, Unbelievable <nocontact@noaddress.com>
>> said:
>>>
>>> Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or
>>> still stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo
>>> HDR"? It makes Photomatix look like MS Paint.
>>>
>>> http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html
>>>
>>> Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the
>>> mindless herd following sheep that you are?
>>>
>>> Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?
>>>
>>> There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out
>>> loud. Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and
>>> UGLY
>>> effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software.
>>> The world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images
>>> created by that useless POS programming.
>>
>> For once you have actually added something useful to the debate.
>
> And so nicely, too.
>
> I'll have a look at it though. I hope the software is good because the home
> page is bloody awful.

I took a look the OSX version, which might do the job, but is a very
clunky rendition of a Windows interface running as an emulation of the
Windows version in X Server.
It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX
software avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these
developers is all too obvious.

The concept is good, and the results may be good, but the overall lock
into an arcane Windows interface is awful.

It needs a lot of work to make it ready for prime time in OSX.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:17 am
From: Alan Browne

On 28-06-09 12:02, Savageduck wrote:

> It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX software
> avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these developers
> is all too obvious.

Actually I find many OS X specific programs poorly designed, needing
more mouse moves and clicks than on comparable Windows apps. The
included OS X calculator's unit conversion method is an absolute bore to
use compared to a Win app such as PCalc. Apple's own "Pages" and
"Numbers" (word processing and spreadsheet) programs are atrocious
designs - so bad I might buy the MS office pack (which I returned last
year).

Other programs I've recently DL'd designed for Mac OS X have been really
badly designed.

I really hate in OS X how 'drop down' menus start at the top of the
primary display, esp. when the application window is in a second display.

As an OS, OS X is superior in almost all ways, but the GUI paradigm
could use many improvements. The notion that a program's menu bar be
detached to the top of the primary display is one of the worst aspects
of the Mac OS X GUI IMO.

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:27 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-28 09:17:18 -0700, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:

> On 28-06-09 12:02, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX software
>> avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these developers
>> is all too obvious.
>
> Actually I find many OS X specific programs poorly designed, needing
> more mouse moves and clicks than on comparable Windows apps. The
> included OS X calculator's unit conversion method is an absolute bore
> to use compared to a Win app such as PCalc. Apple's own "Pages" and
> "Numbers" (word processing and spreadsheet) programs are atrocious
> designs - so bad I might buy the MS office pack (which I returned last
> year).
>
> Other programs I've recently DL'd designed for Mac OS X have been
> really badly designed.
>
> I really hate in OS X how 'drop down' menus start at the top of the
> primary display, esp. when the application window is in a second
> display.
>
> As an OS, OS X is superior in almost all ways, but the GUI paradigm
> could use many improvements. The notion that a program's menu bar be
> detached to the top of the primary display is one of the worst aspects
> of the Mac OS X GUI IMO.

That may be true for many of the over simplified pieces of OSX SW,
however keeping the discussion on this piece of SW, which undoubtably
has its value, remains a terrible translation from Windows to OSX. The
interface is probably just as awkward to work with on a Windows machine.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photo of Pyrrhopterus
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8176eb8ffb060d4d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 7:05 am
From: Nicko

On Jun 28, 1:01 am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> Miguel wrote:
> > "rwalker" <rwal...@despammed.com> escribió en el mensaje
> >news:spdd45husapc9krvqg6r4t331iuuhfmt7k@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:00:11 -0500, terry andersen
> >> <tander...@myisp.org> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:34:04 -0500, "Miguel"
> >>> <responderalgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>> Hello:
>
> >>>> I have just done this photo about this interesting species:
>
> >>>> http://...
>
> >>>> Thanks to all for your comments about photography.
> >>> Caged birds and other caged animals are not very interesting, and not just
> >>> because of the ugly cage-bar lines with no chance of any decent
> >>> composition. Some people even find caged-animal photos to be annoying, if
> >>> not disturbing. Try to get out into their native habitat and photograph
> >>> them in their natural environment. You'd be far better off by learning
> >>> photography with common sparrows on a branch or pigeons in the park than
> >>> you'll ever be by photographing caged birds.
> >> Or for that matter, if he's tame enough, let him out of the cage and
> >> try a few shots.
>
> > Yes, It is a good option, as soon as, thoses parrots will have a special
> > processing, but now I only can take photos "as is".
>
> Then don't take the photos, or do tell the story...
>
> Maybe it's art, calling attention to the cruel caging of animals?
> The bad composition just makes it more painful.
>
> Seriously, do these birds have owners? Much more interesting to shoot
> them interacting with their owner, otherwise I get an image of abandoned
> birds in cages going insane. These are very smart, highly social creatures.

The "special processing" that this retarded troll Miguel refers to
entails boxing the birds up and shipping them off to Texas and Arizona
to be sold in flea markets as either pets or fertilizer, depending
upon their condition when they arrive in the States.

--
YOP...

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 7:46 am
From: Paul Furman

Bob Larter wrote:
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:32:02 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:37:19 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> nospam wrote:
>>>>>> In article <4a3dd3d6$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>>>>>> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
>>>>>>>>> convincing argument that proves this. Of course, I've never seen
>>>>>>>>> convincing argument that anything over 300 improves, either.
>>>>>>>> it depends on the image and viewing conditions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Laser printers used to be 300 dots per inch (dpi), but evolved
>>>>>>>> to 600
>>>>>>>> and even 1200 dpi. Why? People could see ragged edges on letters
>>>>>>>> on 300
>>>>>>>> dpi laser printers. At 600 dpi edges appear smoother. Some can
>>>>>>>> tell the
>>>>>>>> difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers if the paper
>>>>>>>> quality is
>>>>>>>> high.
>>>>>>> That's for monochrome bi-level prints. Continuous tone images are
>>>>>>> much less demanding. For example; dye-sub prints give good
>>>>>>> results at 100-150DPI.
>>>>>> i find that to be extremely low, at least with ink jet printers, and
>>>>>> can easily see a difference between that and 250-300 ppi (not dpi).
>>>>> Inkjets aren't continuous tone, they use dithering.
>>>> Epson printers can be continuous tone for all practical purposes.
>>>> Their printers control droplet size and make use of blending to mix
>>>> colours on the paper.
>>> Stick a glossy inkjet print under a good magnifier some time.
>>
>> With the purpose of seeing what, exactly?
>
> That it isn't a continous tone print. You should be able to see the
> dithering quite clearly.

With a magnifying glass:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samshian/643205009/
-not my photo, just a quick search

>> I'm asking not to be difficult but because I've just done what you
>> asked and I don't know what stage of the image forming is responsible
>> for what I am seeing.
>
> Some combination of the printer driver & the printer firmware.
>

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dileep's Hungry Heron
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1b017725f67663d8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 8:20 am
From: Robert Coe

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:12:16 -0500, Calvin T <ct@spamprevention.net> wrote:
: On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:19:41 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
:
: > Wonderful sequence, from Qatar :
:
: You don't get out much, do you.
:
: >
: >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=32237552
:
: The poster/photographer there is a moron. I've not seen one heron species
: yet that didn't fish that way. This allows for plenty of time to set up
: for the "strike shot". Then you just remain as patient as the heron. Some
: of the more interesting photos I've taken are where a heron will form a
: full-circle umbrella with their wings. Makes for some very artistic
: compositions with the included reflection in mirror-still waters. The fish
: will look for and are attracted to this shade in warmer climates and waters
: when in direct sunlight. I am amazed then at how they can hold their
: outstretched wings so still for so long. I think my most favorite heron
: shot is where an alligator on the bank was just a yard away from the heron.
: The heron determined to keep fishing/waiting there, the alligator hoping
: to steal either fish or heron. It was a tense 20-30 minutes of waiting on
: my part. The heron won his stance, the alligator too slow to get either
: when the heron was finally successful. A "keeper" photograph the results.

IOW, "The picture is a piece of crap because I'm not the one who took it."
Does that about sum it up?

Bob

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 28 2009 9:08 am
From: Calvin T

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:20:25 -0400, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:12:16 -0500, Calvin T <ct@spamprevention.net> wrote:
>: On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:19:41 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>:
>: > Wonderful sequence, from Qatar :
>:
>: You don't get out much, do you.
>:
>: >
>: >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=32237552
>:
>: The poster/photographer there is a moron. I've not seen one heron species
>: yet that didn't fish that way. This allows for plenty of time to set up
>: for the "strike shot". Then you just remain as patient as the heron. Some
>: of the more interesting photos I've taken are where a heron will form a
>: full-circle umbrella with their wings. Makes for some very artistic
>: compositions with the included reflection in mirror-still waters. The fish
>: will look for and are attracted to this shade in warmer climates and waters
>: when in direct sunlight. I am amazed then at how they can hold their
>: outstretched wings so still for so long. I think my most favorite heron
>: shot is where an alligator on the bank was just a yard away from the heron.
>: The heron determined to keep fishing/waiting there, the alligator hoping
>: to steal either fish or heron. It was a tense 20-30 minutes of waiting on
>: my part. The heron won his stance, the alligator too slow to get either
>: when the heron was finally successful. A "keeper" photograph the results.
>
>IOW, "The picture is a piece of crap because I'm not the one who took it."
>Does that about sum it up?
>
>Bob

No.

The pictures are, "Eh, there's thousands like that in the world, but the
creator of them is blowing smoke up everyone's ass because he knows nothing
about bird behavior. Which makes his claims about being a bird photographer
a bunch of bullshit. He was probably taking burst-mode snapshots while on
vacation, as he normally does using his camera in automatic machine-gun
point and shoot mode, and just happened to get some from a nearby ditch
that are better than he's done before. Never once has he taken photos of
any kind of heron before or he'd know better about how they commonly fish.
All species of herons hunt similarly. His being 'astounded' about their
photographed behavior says it all. Green-around-the-gills is putting it
mildly."

That about sums it up.

Got it now?

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

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

Sunday, June 28, 2009

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

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Sunday, June 28, 2009

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

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic