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 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 2:44 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:49:57 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <a5ma351qff3n0jspkrg70b1pl9nun9a4gd@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I have read the police report you provided several times. In no place
>> does it say that he was arrested for failure to provide an ID. It
>> says that he refused to provide an ID, but not that he was arrested
>> for this.
>
>so what was he arrested for?

Susp Cir/Trespass/Obstruction? Questioning?
>
>> The report says he was uncooperative and continuously told
>> (the officer) that he could be anywhere he wanted to be and did not
>> need to answer any questions. That's pretty close to being
>> "combative".
>
>it's his right to be anywhere he wants

This is about his demeanor during questioning, not where he was.

>(other than trespass which is not the case here)

Store Security, according to the police report, asked that Becker be
Criminally Trespassed. This was later retracted by an rei management
spokesperson, but it's my opinion that this was a reversal for PR
reasons by review of management but that Store Security did make the
request at the time. The "Trespass" could refer to this, not to a
charge of trespassing.
>
>> The subject of the police report is "Susp Cir/Trespass/Obstruction".
>
>suspicious circumstance maybe. trespass clearly not since he was never
>asked to leave, but rather to stay. as for obstruction, tacoma v.
>jones and cases referenced therein show that refusal to provide id is
>*not* obstruction.

That was the lawyer arrested at a protest march or something? I read
that a few days ago, but it seemed to be about refusal to provide an
ID not being obstruction if that was the only obstructive thing done.
I don't recall that the lawyer refused to identify himself.

>> You've picked up Flim-Flam Floyd's habit of making up things to make
>> the story better.
>
>ad hominems work wonders for bolstering your case.

I'm not attacking your character, but I am saying that you have
embellished the story by adding "facts" not known. Not as blatantly
as Floyd, though.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 2:57 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:36:41 GMT, the Omrud
<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:41:01 +0100, Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>> That's OK, though. We Americans are not interested in the shove
>>>>> ha'penny finals, the Aunt Sally cup matches, or the conkers death
>>>>> matches and we don't feel the least bit arrogant about it
>>>> However we don't make claims like "The Shot Seen 'Round the World" for
>>>> local UK or EU stuff.
>>>
>>> Don't we? Surely World Series Conkers is seen around the world
>>> (including the USA) on television?

Unless it's played in the US, it can't be a "world" event. We have
claim to that.

>>> And hasn't Shove Ha'penny been officially accepted as a new Olympic
>>> sport for London 2012?
>>
>> We are eagerly looking forward to David Beckham and Eric Cantona to
>> tour the US with Dwile Flonking exhibition matches.
>
>I suspect that you had to look up the spelling, possibly from my last
>recollection of the Great Match on the Sands at Cromer in about 1973.
>
>> It's expected that the Spice Girls will do the girting.
>
>"girting"? Did you mean "gurning"? That's a North-West occupation,
>rather than East Anglia.

Don't you follow your own National Sports? "Girting" is dancing
around a member of the flonking team. "Gurning" is making faces.
If a gurner is added to the tour, I suggest Heather Mills. She can't
very well dance, can she?

Oh, wait. She does. I've never watched that show, though.

(Yes, I checked the spelling. The Brits have this habit of sticking
the letter "u" in things, and I didn't want to flunk the test.)

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 3:06 pm
From: the Omrud

tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:36:41 GMT, the Omrud
> <usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:41:01 +0100, Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's OK, though. We Americans are not interested in the shove
>>>>>> ha'penny finals, the Aunt Sally cup matches, or the conkers death
>>>>>> matches and we don't feel the least bit arrogant about it
>>>>> However we don't make claims like "The Shot Seen 'Round the World" for
>>>>> local UK or EU stuff.
>>>> Don't we? Surely World Series Conkers is seen around the world
>>>> (including the USA) on television?
>
> Unless it's played in the US, it can't be a "world" event. We have
> claim to that.
>
>>>> And hasn't Shove Ha'penny been officially accepted as a new Olympic
>>>> sport for London 2012?
>>> We are eagerly looking forward to David Beckham and Eric Cantona to
>>> tour the US with Dwile Flonking exhibition matches.
>> I suspect that you had to look up the spelling, possibly from my last
>> recollection of the Great Match on the Sands at Cromer in about 1973.
>>
>>> It's expected that the Spice Girls will do the girting.
>> "girting"? Did you mean "gurning"? That's a North-West occupation,
>> rather than East Anglia.
>
> Don't you follow your own National Sports?

Hardly. I take part in sporting activities, but I can't grok the point
of watching others do so.

> "Girting" is dancing around a member of the flonking team.

Ah, I see - I had forgotten the term. But the girting activity is not a
separate action - it's part of the game which is undertaken by the
current "fielding" side, as it might be in cricket or that American form
of rounders you play. If the Spice Grils were to take time off from
being Chief Scout in order to girt, then they would be Dwile Flonking
themselves. You may not yet have a mental image of what a match looks like.

> "Gurning" is making faces.

Yes, I did go to Manchester University, and that was one of the first
things they taught us.

> If a gurner is added to the tour, I suggest Heather Mills. She can't
> very well dance, can she?

She dances like Sara Bernhardt.

> Oh, wait. She does. I've never watched that show, though.

Me neither. I'm not sure I know what she looks like, although I
understand she's a shoe-in for the role of Tarzan (Spigot by name and
spigot by nature).

> (Yes, I checked the spelling. The Brits have this habit of sticking
> the letter "u" in things, and I didn't want to flunk the test.)

I collected the Metro system in Munich this week, but that was putting a
Brit in a U-bahn, rather than the other way around.

--
David

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:08 pm
From: ray

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:02:16 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424737510590641.html?
mod=googlenews_wsj
>
> Finally, and none too soon!

Hardly correct since much of the world cares not at all about baseball.

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

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 3:01 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:27:48 GMT, nick c <nchen711@cloudnine.net>
wrote:

>My pictures my not be the greatest and they certainly do not justify
>the money spent for a total change in equipment, but as Rhett Buttler
>said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Frankly Madam, I don't give a damn."
>
In the movie, it was "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." A
Southerner would never call a woman, even a Scarlett one, a "madam".

In the novel, the word "Frankly" is not in the statement.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 4:04 pm
From: nick c

tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:27:48 GMT, nick c <nchen711@cloudnine.net>
> wrote:
>
>> My pictures my not be the greatest and they certainly do not justify
>> the money spent for a total change in equipment, but as Rhett Buttler
>> said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Frankly Madam, I don't give a damn."
>>
> In the movie, it was "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

I stand corrected. You are correct. RB, in the movie, did not use the
word Madam.

> A
> Southerner would never call a woman, even a Scarlett one, a "madam".

Southerner or not, according to Wikipedia, such women in the South
were not even referred to as Scarlett. They were said to be "fast."

>
> In the novel, the word "Frankly" is not in the statement.

I've never read the book, however, I consider that to be an
informative statement which I'll remember that for the rest of my
days; for as long as I'm on this side of the sod. :)

Thanks.

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 5:12 pm
From: Kris Krieger

ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote in
news:01l535h413r8i8prfa3teograp68fl50u3@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>> telephoto lens. [etc - snipped]
>
> For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
> and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
> familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
> lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
> AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
> since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
> screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
> D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
> that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
> D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
> your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.

Thanks! I saw a link here to the Luminous Lansdscapes website, and the info
about the Sony "Alpha DSLR-A200" (if I got that right) - since I'd like to
take pics outdoors, the Sony sounds like ti is worth looking into in detail.

I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler ;)

>
> By the way, all of these cameras have sensors smaller than a 35mm
> film frame (usually called DX sensors), so the images you'd get with
> 55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like what you'd get with an
> 82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same for the Minolta
> lenses.

OH!! I had seen info via another link that the DSLR sensors are smaller, btu
I didn't realize that woudl magnify the image! THanks 4 that info :) , I'll
have to think about that one - unsure whether it'd be an advantage or a
disadvantage. Depending upon what's seen on the little "screen" (neo-
viewfinder), it might not be a good thing...

> The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and 1.6 for
> Canon's lenses. I don't know what the multiplier is for Sony DSLRs,
> but it's sure to be in this vicinity. Sony's A900 and Nikon's D3,
> D700 and D3x are exceptions, all having large sensors (called FX or
> Full Frame)

Another great explanation, thanks!

(THe people in Best Buy sure didn't know any of this!)

> that are the same size as your film SLRs, so there won't
> be any need for a focal length multiplier. Unfortunately, these
> tend to be much more expensive DSLR bodies. They're good for wide
> angle photography, such as landscapes, because a 20mm lens on an FX
> DSLR is very wide, what you'd expect from a 20mm lens on a film SLR.
> But it would be only slightly wide on a DX DSLR (30mm on Nikon, 32mm
> on Canon). On the other hand, a 300mm lens that might be desirable
> for some nature/wildlife photography would perform like a 450mm or
> 480mm lens on a DX DSLR, which is why most wildlife photographers
> prefer using DX DSLRs.

Ah! Good to know!

It sounds like I need a good book...

>
>
>> What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away
>> my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed
>> to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So
>> I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like
>> they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to
>> decent-quality photographs).
>
> That shouldn't be a problem with Nikon's DSLRs, even the cheapest.
> It's probably also true for Sony's DSLRs, but I'm not the person to
> ask about them.

'S'OK, you're giving me loads of info I didn't know about :)

>
>> At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so
>> price is a consideration
>>
>> Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video,
>> tho' I wouldn't reject that ability, either ;)
>
> Reject it. DSLR videos can be ok if you use a tripod, but for
> following moving subjects you'd be much better off with videos taken
> with much cheaper P&S cameras.
>
>
>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this
>> totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>
> Here, for replies that others will provide, and DPReview's forums
> might be a better place. See
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/
>
> and check out these forums:
> Beginners Questions
> Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000
> Nikon D300 - D100
> Nikon SLR Lens Talk
> Sony SLR Talk
>
> as well as any others that may pique your interest. You don't
> have to register unless you want to post questions or replies. DPR
> also has very good full reviews of many DSLRs, and while they may
> seem overwhelming to some readers at first (there may be more than
> 30 pages per camera), with time and osmosis they'll eventually
> become very readable. Until then, don't miss the Conclusions page
> that's near the end of each "full" review.

Great info! THanks! I don't have a problem with info volume; I'm used to
that. Knowing where to look, tho' is 80% of the battle so to speak - I tried
Google but didn't know how to limit the search.

So I'll save this (prob otehr posts, too) because it's a great place to get
started.

Thanks again!

- Kris

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 5:22 pm
From: Kris Krieger

Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote in news:h0up2v$ssr$1@news.eternal-
september.org:

> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>
> http://www.dpreview.com is a good place to start comparing features.
> Some here will debate the "objectivity" of some of their reviews and
> articles, but the side-by-side feature is handy for comparing different
> cameras, and there's a Search function that lets you select which
> features are important to you, to help narrow your selection.

Yup; no review is 100% objective, because each user of any product has
different goals, methods, and so on, ergo a different perspective. But if
a number of perspectives from reasonably-experienced/knowledgeable people
are seen, a decent conclusion can be arrived at. So that link is very
sueful :)

>
> Now, use of your existing lenses and accessories is something you're
> interested in, and others have given you some info there that can also
> help with your selection.
>
> To that, then, I would add my standard advice: once you've narrowed your
> search to two or three models, go to your local store (camera specialty
> store, Best Buy, etc.) and actually try them out. Pick them up, handle
> them, snap some lenses on and fire off some test shots... work all the
> controls, look through the menus and settings. In the end, your best
> choice will be the one that you're most comfortable with.

I dod a *little* bit of that, didn't bring my lenses but did try the
display items at Best Buy (best local selection and prices), which is what
got me to post here, so yup, that's always good advice - it's like test-
driving a car before plunking down the money.

>
> At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the
> specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll
> probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's
> users over another...

Oh, yeah - like computer-shoppers ;) But it's all grist for the proverbial
mill :) and I appreciate all info.

> but at the end of the day, all of these cameras
> will give you great results and serve you well for years, and so it's
> important to have a camera that *YOU* enjoy using. If it feels awkward
> for *YOU* to handle, or the menus are confusing for *YOU* to navigate,
> or the controls are poorly-placed for *YOUR* hands, then you won't enjoy
> using it, and the camera is much more likely to simply sit on a shelf
> collecting dust, where all those arguments become moot.

THat's a great point, I'll keep that in mind!

>
> Two different friends of mine were shopping for DSLRs not long ago, and
> asked me what they should get... I told them both to get Canons, so I
> could borrow their lenses and accessories :) Then I gave them both this
> same advice... one ended up with a Nikon D80, the other with a Pentax
> *ist, based largely on their own preferences after handling and trying
> out several different bodies.
>
> One other thing: ASAAR makes a good point in that cheaper DSLRs' sensors
> are smaller than a 35mm film frame, and thus will give a cropped view
> from what you're used to with your existing lenses. However, I should
> clarify one of his statements: "By the way, all of these cameras have
> sensors smaller than a 35mm film frame (usually called DX sensors), so
> the images you'd get with 55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like
> what you'd get with an 82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same
> for the Minolta lenses. The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and
> 1.6 for Canon's lenses."
>
> The multipliers apply to the BODY, not the lens. A 55mm lens is
> *always* a 55mm lens - that number refers to the lens's focal length and
> has nothing to do with the size of the imaging device it projects onto,
> be it film or digital.

Ah, OK, that's what I'd thought so it's good to be sure (given my lack of
expertise!)

> What the "crop factor" gives you, is a relative
> comparison to the 35mm frame. For example, you know what sort of view
> you normally get out of your 55mm lens... on a Nikon body with a 1.5X
> crop factor, then, you would need about a 36-37mm lens to achieve the
> same view. Or conversely, as ASAAR notes, that lens on a 1.5X sensor
> will look about the same an 82.5mm lens on your Minolta.

Oh, you know what, I read ASAAR's post backwards then. What i'm thinking
is that I ought to actually just get a "package", IOW, a camera with a
couple lenses that are designed to eb used with it. That seems less
confusing, which translates into "less frustrating" ;)

>
> It's nit-picking, to a degree, and again, it's not something you'll
> probably spend a lot of time comparing on the different DSLRs you look
> at, but it's something important to just keep in mind - that for any
> given lens length, the view is going to be "tighter" than you're used
> to. That is, of course, unless you go for a body with a full-frame
> sensor, but that's probably getting well out of your price range.
>

But it's so tempting... And it depends on 1) how much I save up and
especialy 2)how many stained-glass pieces I can make *and sell*. So it's
actually an impetus to make me "work" harder (if you can call it work)!

THanks for the great info, I'll save all these posts :)

- Kris

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 5:28 pm
From: Kris Krieger

nick c <nchen711@cloudnine.net> wrote in
news:oXdZl.2415$u86.362@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

> Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this
>>>> totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>> [...]
>>
>>> users over another... but at the end of the day, all of these cameras
>>> will give you great results and serve you well for years, and so it's
>>> important to have a camera that *YOU* enjoy using. If it feels
>>> awkward for *YOU* to handle, or the menus are confusing for *YOU* to
>>> navigate, or the controls are poorly-placed for *YOUR* hands, then you
>>> won't enjoy using it, and the camera is much more likely to simply sit
>>> on a shelf collecting dust, where all those arguments become moot.
>>
>> 100% ACK.
>> This advise above it the most important factor. If the camera doesn't
>> feel right for *YOU* then it is the wrong camera for you.
>>
>> jue
>
> Applause .......
>
> I may be a lurker but I recognize good advice and feel compelled to
> say something. In the days of film I was (with momentary exceptions)
> a devoted Nikon user. With the onset of digital, I thought it wise to
> change to Canon 'cause Canon seemed to be more advanced than Nikon. I
> sold my F4 and F5 Nikon's, and all the associate equipment and went
> totally Canon. I've experienced the need of some repairs for my Canon
> equipment but on the whole, I've found the Canon system to be a good
> system. But I wasn't comfortable using Canon and I can't specifically
> say why. Several years passed and my pictures didn't reflect any
> technical problems, so to speak of. Least wise I was happy with them
> and since I pay my bills, that's all that counts. Yet, I didn't quite
> feel comfortable with the use my equipment.
>
> I'm not a pro but I do know pros. Discussing my situation with them, I
> was advised to think about going back to Nikon simply because I may
> have some sort of psychological attachment to Nikon equipment, since
> I've used Nikon equipment for over 50 years (I'm 81 years old and my
> right hand shakes). Since I have the means to indulge myself, I rented
> a Nikon D300, a Nikon 16-85 lens, and a Nikon SB-600 flash. A week
> later, I felt great. I felt comfortable using the Nikon D300, in fact
> I was so sold on the camera I sold all my Canon equipment and bought
> the D300 and the D700 Nikon cameras along with a bunch of lenses. I'm
> as happy now as a frog would be if he discovered he had two peckers.
>
> My pictures my not be the greatest and they certainly do not justify
> the money spent for a total change in equipment, but as Rhett Buttler
> said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Frankly Madam, I don't give a damn."
>

Wow. That is a real object-lesson.

OTOH, when I was first selecting computer 3D modelling software soem years
back, I went through a similar thing - people kept *telling* me that Max
was *THE* program, or Lightwave, btu I tried both and thoroughly loathed
them. I ended up getting a program that has no menus whatsoever, only
icons that have associated settings windows - this was perfect for me,
because I'm a visual/spatial thinkger, whereas it was impossibly "linear"
for me to keep track of endless menus and sub-menus. I continued to
upgrade that program. Meanwhile had I gone with the "must haves", I'd
haev quit doing 3D modelling before I could even get into it.

So there ya go. To each his own.

- Kris

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 5:33 pm
From: Kris Krieger

Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote in news:h10odt$6b3$1@news.eternal-
september.org:

> Matt Ion wrote:
>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>
>>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>>> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>>
>> At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the
>> specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll
>> probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's
>> users over another...
>
> Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll
> battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad.

Well, given that I had specifically asked for info about DSLR, because I'm
used to using my Film SLR and wish to continue with th elevel of control it
gives me, there was no "degradation" - people simply were generously giving
their time to answer the question I'd rather specifically asked, which I
appreciate very much, since it's not like anyone is making money or gaining
personal advantage from doing so.

Sorry you had a negative perception of this.

- Kris

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 5:36 pm
From: Kris Krieger

Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
news:2009061412301727544-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom:

> On 2009-06-14 07:41:13 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
> said:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:42:18 -0700, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com>
>> wrote in <h10odt$6b3$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>> Matt Ion wrote:
>>>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this
>>>>> totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>>>>
>>>> At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in
>>>> the specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually
>>>> you'll probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one
>>>> brand's users over another...
>>>
>>> Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll
>>> battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad.
>>
>> That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a
>> result of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs
>> and those who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the
>> fires as well. It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive.
>> [sigh]
>
> Agreed.
>
> Many DSLR users are also P&S or bridge users.
> Some P&S users will never have the need for a DSLR, and there are
> certainly many DSLR users who will appear holier than thou in their
> chase for bragging rights to ownership of whatever, to justify their
> purchase.
> Each camera type has its place in the World, however the manner in
> which some individuals make the argument for their prefered camera
> make/camera type/PP software etc. creates a provocative, hostile
> situation, which can only be damaging to the NG.
>
> Our resident P&S troll has done one thing though, anything he posts now
> is mostly discounted, even if there might be some valid points made
> within his diatribe of the moment.
>

See my answer 2 Matt Ion.

I had specifically asked about DSLR. SLR is what I'm comfortabel with in
film, and what i like, so I naturally am therefore looking at DSLR. I
really don't have any issue or problem with what other people use; I simply
asked what I did becuase, as someone new to digital, I am looking to find
what *I* am comfortable using.

- Kris

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:00 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-14 17:12:26 -0700, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> said:

One thing to remember with the DSLR and some of the bridge & P&S
cameras is the ability to have focus points other than the center of
the viewfinder.
With my D300 for example you can have up to 51 different AF focus
point. These can be select for composition as you frame the image, they
can be set to track a moving target, or any number of variables.
AF is not all bad (pretty good actually) and could probably deal with
most of your demands..

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:04 pm
From: LOL

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:

>ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote in
>news:01l535h413r8i8prfa3teograp68fl50u3@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
>>
>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>>> telephoto lens. [etc - snipped]
>>
>> For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
>> and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
>> familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
>> lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
>> AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
>> since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
>> screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
>> D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
>> that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
>> D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
>> your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.
>
>Thanks! I saw a link here to the Luminous Lansdscapes website, and the info
>about the Sony "Alpha DSLR-A200" (if I got that right) - since I'd like to
>take pics outdoors, the Sony sounds like ti is worth looking into in detail.
>
>I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
>interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
>dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
>that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler ;)
>
>>
>> By the way, all of these cameras have sensors smaller than a 35mm
>> film frame (usually called DX sensors), so the images you'd get with
>> 55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like what you'd get with an
>> 82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same for the Minolta
>> lenses.
>
>OH!! I had seen info via another link that the DSLR sensors are smaller, btu
>I didn't realize that woudl magnify the image! THanks 4 that info :) , I'll
>have to think about that one - unsure whether it'd be an advantage or a
>disadvantage. Depending upon what's seen on the little "screen" (neo-
>viewfinder), it might not be a good thing...
>
>> The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and 1.6 for
>> Canon's lenses. I don't know what the multiplier is for Sony DSLRs,
>> but it's sure to be in this vicinity. Sony's A900 and Nikon's D3,
>> D700 and D3x are exceptions, all having large sensors (called FX or
>> Full Frame)
>
>Another great explanation, thanks!
>
>(THe people in Best Buy sure didn't know any of this!)
>
>> that are the same size as your film SLRs, so there won't
>> be any need for a focal length multiplier. Unfortunately, these
>> tend to be much more expensive DSLR bodies. They're good for wide
>> angle photography, such as landscapes, because a 20mm lens on an FX
>> DSLR is very wide, what you'd expect from a 20mm lens on a film SLR.
>> But it would be only slightly wide on a DX DSLR (30mm on Nikon, 32mm
>> on Canon). On the other hand, a 300mm lens that might be desirable
>> for some nature/wildlife photography would perform like a 450mm or
>> 480mm lens on a DX DSLR, which is why most wildlife photographers
>> prefer using DX DSLRs.
>
>Ah! Good to know!
>
>It sounds like I need a good book...
>
>>
>>
>>> What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away
>>> my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed
>>> to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So
>>> I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like
>>> they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to
>>> decent-quality photographs).
>>
>> That shouldn't be a problem with Nikon's DSLRs, even the cheapest.
>> It's probably also true for Sony's DSLRs, but I'm not the person to
>> ask about them.
>
>'S'OK, you're giving me loads of info I didn't know about :)
>
>>
>>> At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so
>>> price is a consideration
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video,
>>> tho' I wouldn't reject that ability, either ;)
>>
>> Reject it. DSLR videos can be ok if you use a tripod, but for
>> following moving subjects you'd be much better off with videos taken
>> with much cheaper P&S cameras.
>>
>>
>>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this
>>> totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>>
>> Here, for replies that others will provide, and DPReview's forums
>> might be a better place. See
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/
>>
>> and check out these forums:
>> Beginners Questions
>> Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000
>> Nikon D300 - D100
>> Nikon SLR Lens Talk
>> Sony SLR Talk
>>
>> as well as any others that may pique your interest. You don't
>> have to register unless you want to post questions or replies. DPR
>> also has very good full reviews of many DSLRs, and while they may
>> seem overwhelming to some readers at first (there may be more than
>> 30 pages per camera), with time and osmosis they'll eventually
>> become very readable. Until then, don't miss the Conclusions page
>> that's near the end of each "full" review.
>
>Great info! THanks! I don't have a problem with info volume; I'm used to
>that. Knowing where to look, tho' is 80% of the battle so to speak - I tried
>Google but didn't know how to limit the search.
>
>So I'll save this (prob otehr posts, too) because it's a great place to get
>started.
>
>Thanks again!
>
>- Kris
>

You do realize that you are taking advice from someone who has never even
held a camera, don't you? All he does is read downloaded camera manuals and
read websites about photography his whole sad life. Then he comes here and
tries to pretend to know something about real cameras and real photography.
He thinks he wins if he can fool others into believing that he's a some
kind of "photographer", like some sad virtual-reality-game in his head.
ASSAR is THE longest-lived resident pretend-photographer TROLL. Everyone
who has subscribed to this group for less than month knows this.

Enjoy your (ahem) "advice". :-)

Too too funny! LOL!

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:10 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-14 17:36:20 -0700, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> said:

> Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
> news:2009061412301727544-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom:
>
>> On 2009-06-14 07:41:13 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>> said:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:42:18 -0700, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in <h10odt$6b3$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>>
>>>> Matt Ion wrote:
>>>>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this
>>>>>> totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>>>>>
>>>>> At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in
>>>>> the specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually
>>>>> you'll probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one
>>>>> brand's users over another...
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll
>>>> battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad.
>>>
>>> That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a
>>> result of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs
>>> and those who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the
>>> fires as well. It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive.
>>> [sigh]
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Many DSLR users are also P&S or bridge users.
>> Some P&S users will never have the need for a DSLR, and there are
>> certainly many DSLR users who will appear holier than thou in their
>> chase for bragging rights to ownership of whatever, to justify their
>> purchase.
>> Each camera type has its place in the World, however the manner in
>> which some individuals make the argument for their prefered camera
>> make/camera type/PP software etc. creates a provocative, hostile
>> situation, which can only be damaging to the NG.
>>
>> Our resident P&S troll has done one thing though, anything he posts now
>> is mostly discounted, even if there might be some valid points made
>> within his diatribe of the moment.
>>
>
> See my answer 2 Matt Ion.
>
> I had specifically asked about DSLR. SLR is what I'm comfortabel with in
> film, and what i like, so I naturally am therefore looking at DSLR. I
> really don't have any issue or problem with what other people use; I simply
> asked what I did becuase, as someone new to digital, I am looking to find
> what *I* am comfortable using.
>
> - Kris

Then follow your instincts and your own interpretation of the reviews.
Try and evaluate what you read in this Group and go with what will meet
your requirements, handling comfort and price point.

Sometimes it is best to lurk in these groups to get a feel for the
various regular contributers before raising an issue. That way you
might be better prepared to filter the information.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Enlarge Digital Photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/061331efe25fcd40?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 3:05 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:01:16 -0700 (PDT), thankyou
<zzhereiam@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hello, Thanks for your help.
>
>When enlarging ditial photos what size posters peserve the aspect
>ratio?
>
>
>I was thinnking around the 12" x 18" size posters.
>
>Thanks John

Try Super A3, 13" x 19". By the time you leave a margin they are just
about what you need.

Eric Stevens

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 5:07 pm
From: thankyou

Thanks for your replies.

I guess I was looking to learn "how to" figure it out. You get pixels,
inches, digital cameras files that dont' exactly fit a 6x4 print and
then the consumer prining stores the sell posters photos in fixed
sized.

I have PS, but I'm a video guy mostly and have this ideal to blow up
my RAW (8 mb) Canon files.

With my limited messing with photos experience, I wanted to send the
files over to a Walmart or Office max, but was concerned that the
photos would not "fit" their fixed poster sizes.

Also, working with Ifanview and CanonDPP, the conversion to .jpg makes
the files "too small" for a "poster" blow up.

I'd appreciate some help if you all don't mind.

Regards,
Jon

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 5:52 pm
From: "Lloyd W."

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:79kh3iF1rhqjqU5@mid.individual.net...
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:01:16 -0700, thankyou wrote:
>
>> Hello, Thanks for your help.
>>
>> When enlarging ditial photos what size posters peserve the aspect ratio?
>>
>>
>> I was thinnking around the 12" x 18" size posters.
>>
>> Thanks John
>
> Ones with the same aspect ratio. Can't you do simple division?

he asked for help not an insult, you asshole

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:13 pm
From: ray

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:52:30 -0400, Lloyd W. wrote:

> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:79kh3iF1rhqjqU5@mid.individual.net...
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:01:16 -0700, thankyou wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, Thanks for your help.
>>>
>>> When enlarging ditial photos what size posters peserve the aspect
>>> ratio?
>>>
>>>
>>> I was thinnking around the 12" x 18" size posters.
>>>
>>> Thanks John
>>
>> Ones with the same aspect ratio. Can't you do simple division?
>
>
> he asked for help not an insult, you asshole

Ignoring the profanity, I thought the answer was quite self evident.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: wear from 1/4 Whitworth versus 1/4 UNC
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c88b466b5bf2732c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 3:12 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:47:04 -0400, tnom@mucks.net wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:54:33 GMT, Matty <matt@robinson.fr> wrote:
>
>>I'm in the UK and want to get a few camera mounting bolts (1/4-inch
>>Whitworth) for some projects.
>>
>>It's hard to get those 1/4 BSW bolts and I know a substitute is the
>>American 1/4-inch UNC (also called "1/4-20").
>>
>>With repeated use over time, would a UNC bolt cause noticeably more
>>wear or deformation on the camera's mounting socket than a BSW
>>bolt?
>
>You can couple a 1/4-20 female Whitworth to a 1/4-20 male UNC thread
>without any real wear problem. Just don't over tighten as most of the
>pressure will be exerted on the outer diameter peak of the thread
>form.

There is no such thing as a 1/4-20 Whitworth thread. Its a 1/4-19
thread.

Eric Stevens

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c04187075ef6f9c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 3:17 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:58:16 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>aniramca@gmail.com wrote:
>> ...
>> My question is whether we can physically see a RAW file... I mean
>> without placing it in the mercy of a software to open it as a JPEG
>
>Really the only way to 'see' it is to process with a range of settings
>to see the possibilities the raw file offers. You can make it viewable
>but that's sort of meaningless, it's like tasting a whole spice cabinet,
>everything dumped into one bowl versus possible recipies and the jpeg is
>like what can you cook with a pantry containing a can of pre-made soup
>plus various amounts of salt & pepper - you can't subtract garlic from that.
>
>
>> file (and in the mean time, the software is doing the processing and
>> converting it into JPEG using their own algorithm to produce what they
>> consider to be the best JPEG. I agree that perhaps people should
>> create both RAW and JPEG files when they take pictures.
>>
>> The next question is whether commercial photo processing softwares
>> (Photoshop, Paintshop, Aperture, etc) treating RAW files produced from
>> different brand cameras differently, as I noticed that the extension
>> file name for RAW files differ from cameras to cameras. Can the
>> special software made by the camera's manufacturer (which sometimes
>> comes with the camera that you purchase) do a better job than the
>> commercially photo processing softwares?
>
>Camera manufacturer's software tends to do a little better but it tends
>to be less usable software so if you appreciate smooth workflow, that's
>a detriment. I wish they'd just share what's needed to get the best out
>of their files rather than trying to get into the software business! I
>refuse to pay them for awkward buggy software.

Have you tried Nikon NX2?
>
>
>> I recall that someone mentioned that the camera's processing engine is
>> not as versatile as a computer's photo processing software, as well as
>> the time to produce the JPEG file in the camera is relatively short.
>> Therefore, built-in camera processing engine cannot make a better job
>> than a real photo processing software. As processing speed is getting
>> faster and faster, could a camera sometime in the future produces JPEG
>> photos which are as good as or better than the commercial photo
>> softwares?
>
>Sure.

Eric Stevens

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kalmar Nyckel and Ameriscan Goldfinch
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6041742ab690e5f9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 3:45 pm
From: me@mine.net

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:19:10 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
me@mine.net wrote:

>My favorite shots from this morning of the replica tall ship Karmar Nyckel
>docked in Yorktown, VA this weekend and American Goldfinch feeding just up
>the road from Surrender Field where the British surrendered at the end of
>the American Revolutionary War.
>
>http://edwardgruf.com/2009-06-13_am/slides/_DSC4332.html
>
>http://edwardgruf.com/2009-06-13_am/slides/_DSC4334.html
>
>http://edwardgruf.com/2009-06-13_am/slides/_DSC4369.html
>
>http://edwardgruf.com/2009-06-13_am/slides/_DSC4376.html
>
>http://edwardgruf.com/2009-06-13_am/slides/_DSC4396.html
>
>http://edwardgruf.com/2009-06-13_am/slides/_DSC4458.html
>
>If you care to sort through all the thumbnails or run the slideshow:
>http://edwardgruf.com/2009-06-13_am/

One additional from the next morning:
http://edwardgruf.com/2009-06-14am/slides/_DSC4522.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Correct name for "pinhole lens" used in covert cameras?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a3f36ff97395b3f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 4:30 pm
From: Paul Furman

oh my [THE P&S TROLL] wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Alison J wrote:
>>
>>> Can I ask you specialists some questions about digital cameras.
>>>
>>> I want some info on the optical quality of the lenses used in small
>>> digital camera units lie this: http://tr.im/onwK.
>> http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=spy+camera+lens
>> It's inherently going to be a very small low resolution camera requiring
>> bright light to form an image through a tiny hole. Tiny hole means tiny
>> amount of light. Even if you could focus such a lens on the sensor of a
>> high performance camera, diffraction would limit resolution severely.
>> Tru pinhole photography requires very long exposures due to the tiny
>> amount of light passing.
>>
>> This one for example:
>> http://www.spyville.com/3213ccdbwcam.html
>> $69.99
>> 1/3" CCD Image Sensor (4.8mm x 3.6mm, the very smallest)
>> 512 x 492 pixels
>> Min Illumination: 0.1 Lux
>> Lens Pin Hole: 5.5mm, f/3.5
>> Size: 32mm x 32mm
>>
>> Probably a clear glass/plastic cover, an open pinhole would let dust in.
>> The diagonal of that sensor is 6mm so the 5.5mm lens is a normal lens,
>> with a field of view comparable to a 50mm lens on a 35mm format camera.
>> The aperture of f/3.5 means 5.5/3.5 = 1.6mm diameter opening. That's
>> probably too big for an actual pinhole so perhaps there is an actual
>> lens in there. If so, it's probably nothing fancy because diffraction
>> will wipe out most of the detail anyways. It wouldn't be worth putting a
>> better sensor in there either.
>>
>> I have a pancake lens for 35mm format, the opening is 16mm dia. which is
>> 45mm f/2.8 capable of very high resolution images in low light.
>
> Go study up on "diffraction limits" of microscope objectives, maybe you'll
> really figure it out someday.

Go to hell, I was in the ballpark.

And I doubt there are any infinity focus microscope lenses with a 1.5mm
dia. front element <g> so you haven't contributed anything here but
bile, as always.

While it may be technically possible to get more resolution from such a
tiny lens (I'd estimate 2MP), it's certainly not common. I challenge you
to find anything with a 1.5mm front opening that captures more than 640
pixels wide (1/3 of a megapixel) if even that. Go up to a 6mm opening
(1/4 inch) & you can do a lot better.

This place lists a 2.6mm diagonal sensor lens that does about 100 lppmm
but with a sensor that's only 2mm wide, that's not much resolution:
http://www.enplas.co.jp/english/business/opto/product/iop_list.html
It's designed for CIF (352×288 pixels - 1/10th of a megapixel) and would
have a 0.5mm dia. aperture at f/2.8.

They also list a 1.5mm aperture lens 'for Mega" presumably meaning a 1
megapixel sensor 4.8mm wide which is perhaps just barely possible at 80
lppmm.

> Thanks for playing. Now go educate yourself some more so you don't appear
> so foolish the next time.
>
>>
>>> Many sites call that a "pinhole lens" but when I search for
>>> "pinhole lens" I get hits for lenses created by making a pinhole in
>>> a card.
>>>
>>> Is this tiny glass or plastic lens more correctly called by some
>>> other term which I can use for a search?
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>> AJ
>>>
>>> PS---I would appreciate any links to info on the typical optical
>>> quality and specification of these lenses. (Usual angle of view,
>>> typical low light sensitivity, depth of focus, etc.) I can guess
>>> these are probably low spec but how low?

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What a waste these groups are...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad679aa87d2eb7b1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 5:13 pm
From: "Bertram Paul"

You show some picture, you get none or just a few replies.

You start talking about something trivial like card types and you get
hundreds of replies. But all are fighting each other.
It makes kinder garden look like a university!

I'm out of here.

--
---
Bertram Paul

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 5:55 pm
From: Spamm Trappe

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:13:15 +0100, Bertram Paul wrote:
> You show some picture, you get none or just a few replies.
>
> You start talking about something trivial like card types and you get
> hundreds of replies. But all are fighting each other.
> It makes kinder garden look like a university!
>
> I'm out of here.

alt.whiner is thataway ==>>

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:03 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-14 17:13:15 -0700, "Bertram Paul" <dont@mail.me> said:

> You show some picture, you get none or just a few replies.
>
> You start talking about something trivial like card types and you get
> hundreds of replies. But all are fighting each other.
> It makes kinder garden look like a university!
>
> I'm out of here.

Relax, enjoy it for what it is.
...but I agree there are times the digression from OP can be damaging
to the groups.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:13 pm
From: LOL

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:03:09 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-06-14 17:13:15 -0700, "Bertram Paul" <dont@mail.me> said:
>
>> You show some picture, you get none or just a few replies.
>>
>> You start talking about something trivial like card types and you get
>> hundreds of replies. But all are fighting each other.
>> It makes kinder garden look like a university!
>>
>> I'm out of here.
>
>Relax, enjoy it for what it is.
>...but I agree there are times the digression from OP can be damaging
>to the groups.

Oh look! It's another DSLR TROLL!

You mean continuously going off-topic like that?

You useless piece of shit pretend-photographer TROLL.

LOL!!!!!!!

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

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