Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:51 am
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:22:02 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <hvj725lkahqa8t0e7n7uiro0b10416l5g8@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >what was the crime? taking a photo in a public place is not illegal
>> >unless there's a prohibition for photography.
>>
>> The photographer wasn't charged with taking a photograph. He was
>> charged with something else, and that's been posted here many times.
>> The BTP officer evidently felt that the actions constituted harassment
>> under the Act. It seems like an inappropriate response, but we don't
>> know what went on when the BTP officer questioned the photographer.
>> If the photographer acted like Becker did in Seattle, it becomes more
>> understandable.
>
>uh, what do you mean if he acted like becker? like most normal people,
>becker didn't want to put up with being harassed. unlike most people,
>however, he knew his rights under the law. too bad the cops didn't.

I don't see where Becker was harassed. He took a photograph of Loomis
employees putting cash in an ATM machine. The employees asked him why
he was doing that. Becker refused to cooperate in any way.

Most "normal" people that I know would have answered the Loomis guards
questions and been on their way. Becker seems to be a media whore who
wants a chance to advertise his tee shirts and appear on television
shows. He seems to be delighted by the attention.

>> >> If you consider a police officer who makes an arrest, and the charge
>> >> is later dropped because of insufficient evidence, to be criminal,
>> >> then almost every police officer in any jurisdiction is a criminal.
>> >
>> >that's silly. if they arrest someone with articulable cause, it's not
>> >criminal.
>>
>> "Articulable cause" pertains to detainment for questioning. It's not
>> an arrest. It's not a charge, either. It's something the officer
>> must provide to justify the detainment. It simply means "I can
>> explain why I felt it was proper to require the person to answer my
>> questions".
>
>right, and it has to be valid. they can't arrest someone because they
>feel like it. taking a photograph is legal so there's no reason to
>arrest anyone for it unless it's something *else* like poking the
>camera up a skirt.
>
>> >if they arrest someone when there's no evidence to suggest
>> >any crime has been committed, then it can be criminal.
>> >
>> >look at the recent seattle atm case for a *very* clear example of that.
>>
>> Clear example of what? A photographer being detained (He wasn't
>> arrested. No charge was filed.) because he got snarky with the police
>> about being asked why he was taking a photograph?
>
>he was indeed arrested and there's a photo of him being arrested on his
>web site. he had every right to be snarky because they were harassing
>the fuck out of him.

If you are going to make statements, check out the facts first:

Read Becker's own words: # It's not clear (to me and others) if I was
'arrested' or just 'detained' or if the difference is just semantics.
I never said in my post that I was arrested. I said that I was cuffed,
taken out of the store by the cops, put in a police car and put into a
holding cell for some time. Whether that was "arrested" or not, I'm
not sure.

# When I was released from the police station, it didn't seem like any
charges were being pressed against me. But when I tried to get the
police report, I was reminded that charges can be pressed after the
fact. So as of now, nothing more has happened with the police. We'll
see if that changes.

>there was *no* reason to detain or question him. they asked him why he
>took the picture and he said because he can. that's where it should
>have ended. he didn't make a grab for the cash or threaten anyone so
>there was no reason to pursue it. instead, the guards played bully.

You have a "self-confessed anarchist" who acted like a jerk and you
say *he* was bullied.

Here's an account of the incident from:
http://www.switched.com/2009/05/12/seattle-dude-arrested-for-taking-atm-photo-and-for-being-crypti/

(begin quote) After snapping the above photo of a pair of Loomis
employees filling an ATM, self-described straight-edge vegan and
anarchist Shane Becker got himself arrested at a Seattle REI.

While we don't doubt Becker's innocent intentions (apparently, he
snapped the photo out of sheer curiosity), what got the idiot arrested
was likely not the photo, as he claims, but his refusal to cooperate
with the understandably suspicious employees tasked with filling the
machine with cash.

Instead, when asked by the Loomis employees to come over and talk for
a moment, Becker refused to cooperate in any discussion and would not
hand over his ID to anyone: not the Loomis guys, REI security staff,
or the police. This eventually forced the hand of the officer on the
scene, who had to cuff Becker and take him in.

Becker's argument -- that ATM photos and information about their
workings are easily available online -- makes sense, but his failure
to understand any point of view other than his own narrow, deluded one
is pretty inexcusable.

You can check out Shane's own account here, which, even when filtered
through his own self-righteous perspective, still makes him look like
a jerk. Are we being too judgmental? (end quote)

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:52 am
From: Bob Larter

ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:24:15 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>> its intrusive, only photographers think it isn't.
>> No the LAW thinks it isn't I have a letter from the government saying
>> so. In fact Several people have similar letters from the Home office
>> and they have been posted around the web
>
> the law may well think so, people having unwelcome cameras pointed at
> them don't generally agree.

Too bad for them. They can deal with it at the time like sane adults, or
they can whine like spoiled children.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:08 am
From: Bob Larter

Chris H wrote:
> In message <4a23ba86@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes
>> Chris H wrote:
>>> In message <4a22d2af$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>>> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes
>>>> Chris H wrote:
>>>>> In message <200520090118412735%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>>>>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes
>>>>>> In article <kZCdnfUW-t_SJY7XnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
>>>>>> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nonsense. taking a photo in a public place is legal and does not
>>>>>>>> violate anyone's civil rights. it's also absurd to call it molestation
>>>>>>>> or assault.
>>>>>>> It depends on what you take a picture of, and how. Shoving your camera
>>>>>>> under some girl's skirt, and snapping off a burst would probably result
>>>>>>> in arrest, just about anywhere.
>>>>>> obviously. nobody is advocating upskirt photos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> anything in plain public view where there's no expectation of privacy
>>>>>> and where photography is not prohibited is fair game. period. if you
>>>>>> don't want to be photographed, stay home.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Withe the current hysteria about child
>>>>>>> molesters, it is pretty dangerous for a single man to even visit a
>>>>>>> public park where children are playing, and just sit and watch them
>>>>>>> play. Add a camera to that, and you can count on a visit from the local
>>>>>>> law enforcement.
>>>>>> and that is the whole problem. sitting in a park is *legal*.
>>>>> However as most "public" parks are owned there is a possibility that
>>>>> there is a no photography rule.
>>>> Not here in Australia.
>>> Which part? Public ownership or no photography?
>> "No photography", at least, not that I've ever heard of. I've heard of
>> no-photography rules here in swimming pools or school sporting grounds
>> though, for example.
>
> Just because you have not heard of them does not mean they are not
> there... when was the last time you read the terms and conditions
> referred to in very small print on a railway ticket? I looked, skimmed
> it, once, years ago and there was pages and pages of it.

I'm talking about the rules for public parks. Dunno what it's like in
the UK, but here, there'll be a sign telling you not to let your dog
shit on the grass, & that's about it.

> As an aside in the UK trespass is a civil offence except on the
> railways where it is criminal....
>
> There probably isn't a no photography clause in the park or the swimming
> pool by-laws but they could put one in. the point is areas a lot of
> people regard as "public" are in fact owned and just give the public
> access with conditions.

Fortunately, things are a little more relaxed here. You hear stories
about schools banning parents with cameras, but the last time there was
an event at my son's school, I took the 1Dmk2 & the EF28-70/F2.8L, & got
nice shots of my son & all the other kids, & did prints for the other
parents. Nobody gave me so much as a funny look at the time, & they
appreciated the shots. Score one for sanity!

>>> If the park is owned by some one (and it surely will be) there is always
>>> the *possibility* they could put a no photography rule.
>> True, but it seems to be pretty rare.
>
> Sadly less so these days do to paranoia.
>
>>> Peadophilia (outside the Catholic Church) is quite rare and
>>> something
>>> that is blown out of all proportion by the press.
>>> In fact the vast majority of pedophilia outside institutions (eg
>>> care
>>> homes, boarding schools, choirs, scout groups etc) is from family
>>> members.
>> Exactly correct - especially step-parents. In my case, I'm lot more
>> concerned about the possibility of my ex hooking up with a perv than I
>> am with my son being photographed by some stranger in a public place.
>
> Will you stop bringing common sense in to it! :-))))

Oh hell no! - You can't have that!

> Actually you have hit the nail on the head. My wife was involved with
> social workers due to her profession and she had more cases of parents
> new partner(s) being the problem.
>
> Often the pedophile will look for a single parent with children. The
> tendency is a male predator but females have been known also.

Exactly right. There have been a couple of guys my ex has been involved
with, where I've not been 100% comfortable about him being around my
young son. Each time, I've subtly gotten the message across that I'll be
listening carefully to anything my son says about him. I'm a *lot* more
concerned about someone who's going to be spending nights under the same
roof as my child than I am about random photographers on the train!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:18 am
From: Bob Larter

ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:16:04 -0700, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't see that the photographer did anything wrong, but he was
>>> intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be alarmed.
>> As far as I can tell, Tony, you seem to think that photographers have
>> no rights at all. Your extreme views do not argue well for your
>> credibility.
>
> what rights should owning a camera bring?

The same rights as you have to look someone in the face, pretend to hold
a camera, & to make a KaChick! noise. Most of the time, people will
laugh, one time in a thousand, some drunken fuckwit will punch your head
in for "looking at them funny" or "disrespecting" them. It's all a
matter of the contrast between your legal rights, & your desire not to
get beaten up. Welcome to the Real World.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:43 am
From: nospam

In article <gs3825haqvc9l4t9frm3qjli0q6gjlsvsg@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >uh, what do you mean if he acted like becker? like most normal people,
> >becker didn't want to put up with being harassed. unlike most people,
> >however, he knew his rights under the law. too bad the cops didn't.
>
> I don't see where Becker was harassed. He took a photograph of Loomis
> employees putting cash in an ATM machine. The employees asked him why
> he was doing that. Becker refused to cooperate in any way.

other than protecting the cash for the atm (in which he showed no
interest whatsoever), the guards don't have the authority to do
anything. they can ask why he took the photo, just like anyone else
can ask why he did, and he can decide to answer the question or not
answer the question. he did answer it, which qualifies as cooperating.

however, they then insisted on getting his id and one guard even
claimed he feared for his safety (pure bullshit, they had gun). they
don't have the authority to do demand id any more than the guy standing
behind him in line has the authority to do so. becker knew that so he
said no. that pissed off the guards so they called the cops.

> Most "normal" people that I know would have answered the Loomis guards
> questions and been on their way. Becker seems to be a media whore who
> wants a chance to advertise his tee shirts and appear on television
> shows. He seems to be delighted by the attention.

regardless of what you think he is, he was within the law. even media
whores have rights, not that he did this with the goal of being on tv.

> >> Clear example of what? A photographer being detained (He wasn't
> >> arrested. No charge was filed.) because he got snarky with the police
> >> about being asked why he was taking a photograph?
> >
> >he was indeed arrested and there's a photo of him being arrested on his
> >web site. he had every right to be snarky because they were harassing
> >the fuck out of him.
>
> If you are going to make statements, check out the facts first:

i did.

> Read Becker's own words: # It's not clear (to me and others) if I was
> 'arrested' or just 'detained' or if the difference is just semantics.
> I never said in my post that I was arrested. I said that I was cuffed,
> taken out of the store by the cops, put in a police car and put into a
> holding cell for some time. Whether that was "arrested" or not, I'm
> not sure.

being handcuffed, taken to the police station and read his miranda
rights *is* an arrest. just because becker wasn't sure what it was
doesn't mean it wasn't. it very clearly was an arrest.

> # When I was released from the police station, it didn't seem like any
> charges were being pressed against me. But when I tried to get the
> police report, I was reminded that charges can be pressed after the
> fact. So as of now, nothing more has happened with the police. We'll
> see if that changes.

the police report states that he was arrested for not providing id and
had to sign a trespass admonishment card. unfortunately for the cops,
the former is legal and the latter was never requested by rei. in
other words, they made it up to look good.

> >there was *no* reason to detain or question him. they asked him why he
> >took the picture and he said because he can. that's where it should
> >have ended. he didn't make a grab for the cash or threaten anyone so
> >there was no reason to pursue it. instead, the guards played bully.
>
> You have a "self-confessed anarchist" who acted like a jerk and you
> say *he* was bullied.

absolutely correct. he did *nothing* illegal and was arrested for
asserting his constitutional rights. that's bullying.

> Here's an account of the incident from:
>
> http://www.switched.com/2009/05/12/seattle-dude-arrested-for-taking-atm-photo-
> and-for-being-crypti/
>
> (begin quote) After snapping the above photo of a pair of Loomis
> employees filling an ATM, self-described straight-edge vegan and
> anarchist Shane Becker got himself arrested at a Seattle REI.

so he was arrested then. glad we cleared that up.

> While we don't doubt Becker's innocent intentions (apparently, he
> snapped the photo out of sheer curiosity), what got the idiot arrested
> was likely not the photo, as he claims, but his refusal to cooperate
> with the understandably suspicious employees tasked with filling the
> machine with cash.

the guards did not have the authority to demand id. why should he
cooperate? do you show your id to anyone who asks?

> Instead, when asked by the Loomis employees to come over and talk for
> a moment, Becker refused to cooperate in any discussion and would not
> hand over his ID to anyone: not the Loomis guys, REI security staff,
> or the police. This eventually forced the hand of the officer on the
> scene, who had to cuff Becker and take him in.

actually, they finished up with the atm and then went to talk to him
while he stood in line to buy something.

he really should have left the store, and had the guard carried out his
threat of tackling him (itself illegal), he'd be a rich kid. very rich.

> Becker's argument -- that ATM photos and information about their
> workings are easily available online -- makes sense, but his failure
> to understand any point of view other than his own narrow, deluded one
> is pretty inexcusable.

ironic, since the failure for the police to understand what's actually
legal and not legal under the constitution of the united states in
addition to the laws of the state of washington (which actually has
*more* protection than the constitution) is inexcusable. they're
*supposed to know this stuff*.

> You can check out Shane's own account here, which, even when filtered
> through his own self-righteous perspective, still makes him look like
> a jerk. Are we being too judgmental? (end quote)

people who stand up for their rights often do look like jerks.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: more important than: Could you actually see
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c04187075ef6f9c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 10:55 am
From: Bruce

"Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>
>What's really important about photography this week is why is Pentax
>new range leader superceding K10 and then K20 called the "K7"?

What is important is to realise that Pentax is a dying brand, especially
in the UK:

- Pentax Japan is to pay off half of its Japanese workers this year.
- Pentax UK has paid off most of its sales staff in the past year.
- Jessops no longer stock Pentax, so the brand has very little high
street presence in the UK.

So who cares what their latest DSLR is called? You will probably never
see one, except online or in a magazine.

It is a sad conclusion for a proud brand with a great history.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:43 am
From: Bob Larter

nospam wrote:
> In article <4a240907$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> TTBOMK, the only transformation is the A2D
>> conversion. And that lack of transformations is, after all, the whole
>> point of the RAW file format in the first place.
>
> basically that's true, however, nikon did apply white balance to the
> raw data in some cameras before writing it to the file (d1 series, if i
> recall). i doubt that's what he meant, and as far as i know, it's no
> longer done.

God, I'd hope not! There are two reasons why I shoot RAW: (1) to get the
most dynamic range from my shots, ie; to push them a stop or two, & (2)
To fix the white balance for shots that were taken under mixed lighting.

> not to sidetrack, but the only cameras that actually do a transform are
> sigma/foveon. the raw data in a sigma raw file is *not* what came off
> the sensor and has gone through quite a bit of processing before being
> written to the file (which is kinda funny, given the crazy claims about
> it being 'true colour').

Yuck. IMHO, the whole point of RAW images is that they haven't been
screwed around with.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:46 am
From: Bob Larter

nospam wrote:
> In article <4a240c27$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> He's talking about the *process* of converting from the RAW image to the
>>>> RGB image that you see on your screen, which includes Bayer
>>>> deconvolution. As he says, there is no 1:1 relationship between a pixel
>>>> ("sensel") on the image sensor & a pixel on the RGB image that you see
>>>> on your screen.
>>> there is a 1:1 mapping of sensels:pixels, although multiple sensels are
>>> used to calculate one pixel. in other words, 10 million sensels on the
>>> sensor-> 10 million pixels in the image.
>> That's the default, but there's no mathematical necessity for the number
>> of output pixels to equal the number of output pixels.
>
> i would hope the number of output pixels equals the number of output
> pixels :)
>
> unless you upscale or downscale, the number of input sensels will be
> the same as the number of output pixels.

That's usually the case, but there's no particular reason that it has to
be. Indeed, the colour rendition of most cameras would be improved by
reducing the output resolution by 2:1 during Bayer dematrixing.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:47 am
From: Bob Larter

nospam wrote:
> In article <4a240f5a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> There is no OS I am aware of where RAW conversion is an integral part of
>>>> the OS.
>>> mac os x.
>> Realy? So you think that every time a new RAW format comes out, a new
>> OSX update comes out?
>
> they're either added in the free dot upgrades or they issue a separate
> raw camera support update.
>
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1475>

In other words: "Yes". That must make for some frequent OS upgrades!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 12:10 pm
From: nospam

In article <4a24216d@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> TTBOMK, the only transformation is the A2D
> >> conversion. And that lack of transformations is, after all, the whole
> >> point of the RAW file format in the first place.
> >
> > basically that's true, however, nikon did apply white balance to the
> > raw data in some cameras before writing it to the file (d1 series, if i
> > recall). i doubt that's what he meant, and as far as i know, it's no
> > longer done.
>
> God, I'd hope not! There are two reasons why I shoot RAW: (1) to get the
> most dynamic range from my shots, ie; to push them a stop or two, & (2)
> To fix the white balance for shots that were taken under mixed lighting.

turns out it was the d2x.

<http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/scene/10/index_02.
htm>

Conventionally, white balance is conditioned digitally. Once an image
is taken with a digital camera, A/D conversion occurs first, then
this digital image is evaluated to determine the white balance value,
according to the conventional process. With the D2X, however, the
white balance adjustment is in analog, which means that white balance
value is determined for the image before A/D conversion. So we had to
figure out a new mechanism for this.

i don't think it's inherently bad, especially if it does produce better
results, but i do agree that raw should be raw.

> > not to sidetrack, but the only cameras that actually do a transform are
> > sigma/foveon. the raw data in a sigma raw file is *not* what came off
> > the sensor and has gone through quite a bit of processing before being
> > written to the file (which is kinda funny, given the crazy claims about
> > it being 'true colour').
>
> Yuck. IMHO, the whole point of RAW images is that they haven't been
> screwed around with.

the cameras have a 12 bit a/d converter so the raw values should be
0-4095. instead, they range from negative numbers to around 10,000. i
don't know why they did that, since the original sd9/10 only outputted
raw and you *had* to process it (again) on the computer.

what's ironic is the sigma fanbois brag about true colour, the purity
of the data, how nothing is interpolated and how perfect the results
are. it turns out there's actually *more* going on than with bayer.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 12:12 pm
From: nospam

In article <4a242242@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:

> In other words: "Yes". That must make for some frequent OS upgrades!

the dot upgrades are usually every couple of months, and one complaint
is that apple is slow in supporting new cameras. they've gotten better
at it though.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Problem with a Canon 50D
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a9a0f0506dd8c10b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:16 am
From: Matt Ion

Bob Larter wrote:
> Matt Ion wrote:
>> Gary Edstrom wrote:
>>> My 4 month old Canon 50D has just developed a problem with the thumb
>>> wheel located just behind the shutter release. No function that
>>> requires its use functions anymore. Among other things, I can no longer
>>> adjust the ASA value.
>>>
>>> Has anyone else seen a similar problem?
>>>
>>> I plan on calling Canon for warranty repair next Monday, but wanted to
>>> see if anyone else has had a similar problem.
>>>
>>> In 4 years of use, my older 20D never had any problems.
>>
>> This may be a stupid question, but are you enabling the thumb wheel?
>> I don't know about the 50D specifically, but my 40D's power switch has
>> two positions - the first turns the camera on but leaves the
>> thumbwheel disabled; the second enabled the thumbwheel.
>>
>> Not trying to be consescending or anything, it's just amazing the
>> little things that get overlooked sometimes... I'm even guilty of it
>> myself (try shooting a couple dozen frames and then realizing you
>> don't have a card in the camera... duh!)
>
> Oh yeah. When I bought the extended battery grip for my 10D, I found
> that the portrait-mode controls didn't work, & took it back to the shop.
> Imagine my embarrassment when the girl behind the counter looked me in
> the eye, flicked a tiny little switch, & shot a picture with the
> 'broken' control. Boy, was my face face red. It turned out that there's
> an enable switch for all the vertical controls, so that you keep from
> hitting the buttons by accident, & they switch it off at the factory.
> I apologised profusely, & slunk out of the shop.

Funny you should mention that, that got me too when I first put together
my 40D. Stupid thing is, I also had the battery grip with my 300D; it
had the same switch, and once I turned it on, I never turned it off
again. I guess when I put the 40D's grip on, it just slipped my mind
that I'd have to turn that switch on... I spent several minutes removing
and reinserting the grip and the battery, turning the camera off and on...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CF dying?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2d949e57f899e814?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:23 am
From: Bob Larter

David J Taylor wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
> []
>>> which I wasn't quite so happy with (as
>>> well as the fact the more modern cards might be more or less reliable
>>> than earlier cards).
>>
>> You know that FLASH memory wears out, right?
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_levelling>
>
> Yes, of course. Still doesn't alter the fact that more modern cards
> might have different reliability (e.g. wear out in more write cycles)
> than earlier, making the 1x8GB vs. 8x1GB comparison invalid on purely
> numeric grounds. OK, you can say other things being equal", but they
> aren't equal.

Having had 30 years of experience in the electronics & computer
industries, my money would be on newer cards being more reliable than
older cards. I can't point you at any serious data on this, but that's
what my gut says.

>> Oh, I haven't ever had to swap cards anywhere as exotic as that. My
>> biggest danger has been the possibility of dropping a CF card into a
>> puddle on a nightclub table, or someone spilling a drink on me. Other
>> than that, the next biggest danger I've had is when I've been shooting
>> an outdoor event, & needed to swap cards or lenses in a sand storm.
>> *That* can be scary. Since I got the 1Dmk2, changing batteries hasn't
>> been an issue. I've never yet had to change one during a shoot. (It
>> was very different with the tiny Li-Ions for my 10D.)
>
> Stories about CF (and SD?) cards surviving a washing machine make me
> think that dropping into a puddle or a drink probably wouldn't lose you
> any images!

Probably true, but I'd rather not have to find out the hard way. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:25 am
From: Bob Larter

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <7a586cf4-fd90-4dc9-93d7-9f2457015b84
> @q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Poldie says...
>
>> My 4gb CF card holds less than 400 raw (10MB or so 10megapixel)
>> files. Saying 2GB is plenty is laughable. My card cost £20 including
>> postage.
>
> 400 images on one card is a lot. Even more than that is dangerous, in
> case the card goes bad.

Hm. I have two 4GB Sandisks, & have shot at least thirty thousand RAW
images on them without ever losing a single shot. I'm not worried.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 12:46 pm
From: "David J Taylor"

Bob Larter wrote:
[]> Having had 30 years of experience in the electronics & computer
> industries, my money would be on newer cards being more reliable than
> older cards. I can't point you at any serious data on this, but that's
> what my gut says.

I would agree, but I still would prefer 4 x 4GB cards than 1 x 16GB (for a
trip of more than a day or two).

Cheers,
David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: When Highlanders get Bored with their Sheep
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bd918ce97f8a8d4b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:27 am
From: Bob Larter

John McWilliams wrote:
> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> Which is why I sent the tiny url. Less likely to break a URL.
>>
> Could you train yourself to put the reply following a trimmed post??
>
> Many folks don't like tiny URLs and won't click on them unless they are
> quite sure what the poster is up to.

Fair enough, but did you know that you can switch on an option at
tinyurl to always show you the final URL & wait for your okay before
proceeding?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 12:43 pm
From: John McWilliams

[alt.home.repair] out

Bob Larter wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>> Which is why I sent the tiny url. Less likely to break a URL.
>>>
>> Could you train yourself to put the reply following a trimmed post??
>>
>> Many folks don't like tiny URLs and won't click on them unless they
>> are quite sure what the poster is up to.
>
> Fair enough, but did you know that you can switch on an option at
> tinyurl to always show you the final URL & wait for your okay before
> proceeding?
>

Yes, and one can also formulate a wee preview when arranging a t.u.

However, I don't click on any link in usenet unless I 'know' the poster.
"Rita" posted a pile of dogshit with an innocuous name in the link, so
there's one poster whose URLs I avoid.

-0-
--
john mcwilliams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to hold and carry a camera with a heavy lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/35d5d71e3cce87b4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:29 am
From: Bob Larter

John McWilliams wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> George Kerby wrote:
>
>>> And it may be a Yank vs. UK definition thingy as well.
>>>
>>> Then, there is "Duck Tape"...
>
> Useful for binding leaky ducks, but not recommended when roasting same.

So, what happens if you try to roast a leaky duck?

>>> <http://www.ducttapeguys.com/duckvsduct.html>
>>
>> Duct tape is silver, Gaffer tape is black. (Mostly)
>
> The exact same type of tape that's silver duct tape comes in red, black
> and possibly many other colors.

But is still glossy rather than matte, yes?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:30 am
From: Bob Larter

whisky-dave wrote:
> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4a23cade@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>> Then, there is "Duck Tape"...
>>> <http://www.ducttapeguys.com/duckvsduct.html>
>> Duct tape is silver, Gaffer tape is black. (Mostly)
>>
>
> I wonder if duck tape was ever used for securing a duck and why.
>
> I wonder if self amalgamating tape any use for photographers and their
> equipment

TTBOMK, self-amalgamating tape is mainly used for electrical work in
hostile environments.

> as a replacement for duct tape, it's mainly used by plumbers, but tends to
> be a bit messy.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 12:47 pm
From: John McWilliams

Bob Larter wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Bob Larter wrote:
>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>>> And it may be a Yank vs. UK definition thingy as well.
>>>>
>>>> Then, there is "Duck Tape"...
>>
>> Useful for binding leaky ducks, but not recommended when roasting same.
>
> So, what happens if you try to roast a leaky duck?

After a good plucking, if there's any duct or duck tape left, remove
before placing in roasting pan....
>
>>>> <http://www.ducttapeguys.com/duckvsduct.html>
>>>
>>> Duct tape is silver, Gaffer tape is black. (Mostly)
>>
>> The exact same type of tape that's silver duct tape comes in red,
>> black and possibly many other colors.
>
> But is still glossy rather than matte, yes?
>

Last one I bought was semi-gloss, or semi-matte, take yer pick!

--
John McWilliams

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 12:55 pm
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

John McWilliams wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Bob Larter wrote:
>>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And it may be a Yank vs. UK definition thingy as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, there is "Duck Tape"...

In the US "Duck Tape" is a brand name of Duct Tape.

Doug McDonald

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ten years of digital photography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/853e018d5181a0e6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 11:45 am
From: Chris H

In message <7l7h05pk4evue5slhv0qgtkpo9fn93iq4c@4ax.com>, Gary Edstrom
<GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> writes
>May 18th will mark 10 years since I took my first digital picture with
>my first digital camera: A Kodak DC-265
>
>At only 1.5MP, it was definitely no match for a 35mm camera, but it was
>a start and I had a lot of fun with it.

That got me thinking too

I had a small Fuji that did 800*600 late 1990's
Kodak DC120 that had a whole MEGA PIXEL (wow! :-) about 2000
Fuji S7000 Zoom 6Mp (about 2002)
Nikon D70s 6Mp(2005)
Nikon D300 12Mp (2008)

Like others I took fewer 35mm pictures partly because of cost. I have
taken a lot more with the digital cameras in a much shorter time.

I don't think, as some suggest the quality of the pictures has gone down
with quantity, in fact the opposite. I take more and can experiment more
so I understand the camera better. Also I carry the camera more often
and can now afford to take more pictures.

After I moved to the Fuji S7000 and could get reasonable quality
pictures and I could get good results without a dark room my [digital]
photography took off again. I don't think I have used a film camera
since about 2001.

The lack of a dark room was a major problem for doing much with (35mm)
photography. Now I can take photos and process them in the "dark room"
on a laptop over a coffee anywhere I like. This has also meant it is
easier to do more.

SO I got back in to photography with the Fuji S7000 (the Kodak was used
for photos for a web site for my sons team when 19200 dial up was the
way we connected to the Internet and WWW was still relatively new )

From the Fuji S7000 the Nikon D70S was where things really got going. I
had been shooting RAW on the Fuji but the Nikon was a proper SLR system
and I could change lenses.... Due to a good year in 2008 I grabbed a
D300 and that will be it for a long while

The D300 can do more than I ever could with a 35mm camera and the D70 is
a good backup. A G4 Powerbook and a G5 with Photo shop give me far more
creativity than I will ever need this side of heaven. I see no need to
go for an FX or more than 12Mp I will rarely, if ever, want an image
larger than A3. SO I think I am sorted.

I think most people will now start to keep DSLR's in the same way they
carried the same 35mm for years.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: RAW file formats and observations
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/30a49e1ef31c842b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 12:02 pm
From: aniramca@gmail.com

I downloaded a number of sample RAW image files from the internet.
They range from 5 MB (Nikon D40 - NEF format) to 35 MB (Mamiya ZD -
MEF format).
The downloaded files are from Canon CR2 format (5D), Nikon NEF format
(D40, D200 and D3X), Panasonic RAW (DMC-L1), Panasonic RW2 (G1), Fuji
RAF format (S2, S3 and S5), Kodak DCR format (DCS Pro), Sony ARW
format (A700), Sigma X3F (SD14), Pentax DNG (K10D), Olympus ORF format
(E3) and Mamiya MEF format (ZD).

I am using a Mini Mac computer, equipped with iphoto and Preview.app
to view and compile images. I also have a Fuji FinePix Viewer that
comes with my S5.

Observations
1. My Fuji FinePix Viewer can only open RAF format (Fuji cameras).
2. My Preview.app and iPhoto from Apple Mac can open Canon CR2, Nikon
NEF (except from D3X), Panasonic RAW (but not RW2), Fuji RAF, and
Pentax DNG. It cannot open Kodak DCR, Olympus ORF, Mamiya MEF,
Panasonic's RW2 and Sony AEW and Sigma X3F
There is possibility that the files that I downloaded for the Nikon
D3X, Kodak DCS and Sony A700 may be corrupt. I am not certain and may
try to download them again.
When I changed the extension of the Mamiya NEF and Nikon D3x NEF, the
photos can be viewed only as thumbnails.

I wonder if any version of Adobe Photoshop can open all of the above
files, or does it depend on the version of the software?
I am also curious as when was the first RAW file introduced to the
market. I recall that the first professional digital camera was
introduced by Kodak in early 1990s (DCS system), and I believe that
Nikon did not introduce the D1 until 1999 and Canon EOS-1D until
2001?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 12:22 pm
From: nospam

In article
<1d14a029-7d6f-42ef-aa74-5314f3832264@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
<aniramca@gmail.com> wrote:

> I downloaded a number of sample RAW image files from the internet.
> They range from 5 MB (Nikon D40 - NEF format) to 35 MB (Mamiya ZD -
> MEF format).
> The downloaded files are from Canon CR2 format (5D), Nikon NEF format
> (D40, D200 and D3X), Panasonic RAW (DMC-L1), Panasonic RW2 (G1), Fuji
> RAF format (S2, S3 and S5), Kodak DCR format (DCS Pro), Sony ARW
> format (A700), Sigma X3F (SD14), Pentax DNG (K10D), Olympus ORF format
> (E3) and Mamiya MEF format (ZD).

wow, that's quite a list. any reason for such a huge variety?

> I am using a Mini Mac computer, equipped with iphoto and Preview.app
> to view and compile images.

that's not really the best way to experiment with raw.

> I also have a Fuji FinePix Viewer that
> comes with my S5.

> Observations
> 1. My Fuji FinePix Viewer can only open RAF format (Fuji cameras).

that's not surprising.

> 2. My Preview.app and iPhoto from Apple Mac can open Canon CR2, Nikon
> NEF (except from D3X), Panasonic RAW (but not RW2), Fuji RAF, and
> Pentax DNG. It cannot open Kodak DCR, Olympus ORF, Mamiya MEF,
> Panasonic's RW2 and Sony AEW and Sigma X3F

here's the list of what os x supports as of 10.5.7:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1475>

> There is possibility that the files that I downloaded for the Nikon
> D3X, Kodak DCS and Sony A700 may be corrupt. I am not certain and may
> try to download them again.
> When I changed the extension of the Mamiya NEF and Nikon D3x NEF, the
> photos can be viewed only as thumbnails.

that's the embedded thumbnail.

> I wonder if any version of Adobe Photoshop can open all of the above
> files, or does it depend on the version of the software?

here's what camera raw supports:
<http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html>

you can download the free dng converter which will use camera raw and
output it to a dng file or you can download a trial version of
photoshop or lightroom. there are plenty of guides online about how to
use the various controls.

> I am also curious as when was the first RAW file introduced to the
> market. I recall that the first professional digital camera was
> introduced by Kodak in early 1990s (DCS system), and I believe that
> Nikon did not introduce the D1 until 1999 and Canon EOS-1D until
> 2001?

the dates sound right. raw files are basically sensor dumps so unless
the cameras outputted tiff (as some did early on) or jpeg, then they
were raw or some proprietary format (i think kodak might have done
that).

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 12:23 pm
From: "Trev"

aniramca@gmail.com wrote:
> I downloaded a number of sample RAW image files from the internet.
> They range from 5 MB (Nikon D40 - NEF format) to 35 MB (Mamiya ZD -
> MEF format).
> The downloaded files are from Canon CR2 format (5D), Nikon NEF format
> (D40, D200 and D3X), Panasonic RAW (DMC-L1), Panasonic RW2 (G1), Fuji
> RAF format (S2, S3 and S5), Kodak DCR format (DCS Pro), Sony ARW
> format (A700), Sigma X3F (SD14), Pentax DNG (K10D), Olympus ORF format
> (E3) and Mamiya MEF format (ZD).
>
> I am using a Mini Mac computer, equipped with iphoto and Preview.app
> to view and compile images. I also have a Fuji FinePix Viewer that
> comes with my S5.
>
> Observations
> 1. My Fuji FinePix Viewer can only open RAF format (Fuji cameras).
> 2. My Preview.app and iPhoto from Apple Mac can open Canon CR2, Nikon
> NEF (except from D3X), Panasonic RAW (but not RW2), Fuji RAF, and
> Pentax DNG. It cannot open Kodak DCR, Olympus ORF, Mamiya MEF,
> Panasonic's RW2 and Sony AEW and Sigma X3F
> There is possibility that the files that I downloaded for the Nikon
> D3X, Kodak DCS and Sony A700 may be corrupt. I am not certain and may
> try to download them again.
> When I changed the extension of the Mamiya NEF and Nikon D3x NEF, the
> photos can be viewed only as thumbnails.
>
> I wonder if any version of Adobe Photoshop can open all of the above
> files, or does it depend on the version of the software?
> I am also curious as when was the first RAW file introduced to the
> market. I recall that the first professional digital camera was
> introduced by Kodak in early 1990s (DCS system), and I believe that
> Nikon did not introduce the D1 until 1999 and Canon EOS-1D until
> 2001?

The latest Lightroom 2.3 and the Photoshop raw Plugging open the biggest
range only models released in the last few months or some very old Camera's
will not be Included. All camera makers software is designed for there
models only.
Not that it maters unless you want to open every know make going as When you
buy a Camera you get the software to handle its Raw format, some have a more
advanced version that can be bought.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 1 2009 12:53 pm
From: Chris H

In message <h00q84$49u$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:AM$GlyJ0dsHKFA7D@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>>>> There is no way in which a nuke is a defensive weapon. It can act as a
>>>> mutual deterrence, but NOT a defense. The more countries that get
>>>> nukes,
>>>> the greater the chance someone will actually USE one.
>>>
>>>I feel the same way about people with guns whether it be police
>>>my friends brother firing in to the air or anyone else.
>>
>> That is your personal insecurity.
>I would feel insecure if they are told to shoot first ask, questions later.
>I also feel insecure enough to look both ways when crossing the road even if
>the lights
>are red although I don;t think being worried by an item that can end your
>live
>qualifies as insecurity.
>I think those that carry guns for self defence are the insecure ones.

It depends who and where.
I have carried a gun for self defence whist on duty in the UK.
but not off duty.
I can see no reason for most civilians to ever carry a gun for self
defence and in the UK it is extremely rare. It is far more common that
they assign an armed detective to you if there is a threat.

>>I don't want a nanny state where
>> anyone who is scared of their own shadow makes the rules fro normal
>> people (and yes I have been shot at and held at gunpoint)
>.
>It's not my shadow I'm scared of.
>A friend of mine was tracked down to a pub and searched by 4 police
>because she was seen taking a photo of Tilsbury power station.

Now that is worrying. What was the excuse the police gave? Not
Terrorism? It is far easier to use google maps or one of the others or
any of the many on-line images. For a real recce you use a mobile phone
camera and make like a tourist.

>Maybe she should have been shot on sight too.
>I guess it was her spanish complection that might have freeked them.

Why didn't you say... no beard was there?

>>>> Press someone hard enough, and they will respond with the strongest
>>>> weapon
>>>> they have.
>>>Yep, and hopefully with a 'weaker' weapon less harm.
>>
>> Not at all. Weaker weapons often cause more harm I would rather be shot
>> than attacked with a knife.
>
>Is that shot once or attacked with a knife or be shot with a sub-machine
>gun.

Either once or an SMG than a knife

>If a knife can be so devastating then why do the majority in the US choose
>a gun as their preferred weapon of self defence, well those that want a
>weapon
>for self defence.

Don't be such an idiot. Go to a casualty and look at the mess a knife
makes.

>> Now no one has any respect for speed limits or the people who enforce
>> them
>
>I wonder why that is then.

Because they are used to raise money not for safety whist the Police are
raising cash they are not stopping the crime that blights the community.

>Perhaps these people have the same respect for others lives,

No there is no link.

> I'd hate
>to give them the right to have a gun, when they show such little respect
>for speed or those enforcing them.

There is absolutely no correlation between the two

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

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

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