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: Is nothing sacred? :) Not in these groups or on E-bay!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/47a7464e2ecdc094?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:19 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-28 23:35:28 -0700, Annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> said:

> D-Mac, everybody knows why you only show us your crap shots and never
> show the good ones.
> The good ones don't exist.
>
> The first 12 pics in this gallery were all taken by me on Sunday, June
> 28, 2009.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/2009
>
> That's just one day's output, and I skipped a lot of them because I
> need to go to bed.
> Show me 12 pics that you've EVER taken that compare with those.
> You won't. You can't. You suck.

Nice osprey family Bret.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:29 am
From: D-Mac

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-06-28 23:35:28 -0700, Annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> said:
>
>> D-Mac, everybody knows why you only show us your crap shots and never
>> show the good ones.
>> The good ones don't exist.
>>
>> The first 12 pics in this gallery were all taken by me on Sunday, June
>> 28, 2009.
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/2009
>>
>> That's just one day's output, and I skipped a lot of them because I
>> need to go to bed.
>> Show me 12 pics that you've EVER taken that compare with those.
>> You won't. You can't. You suck.
>
> Nice osprey family Bret.
>
>

Yeah... They're tame ones in a refuge. You can walk right up to the nest
- if you're game to risk a pecking... I'm told.

Ask him for a link to the shot of his car parked in front of them!

--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:36 am
From: D-Mac

Annika1980 wrote:
> D-Mac, everybody knows why you only show us your crap shots and never
> show the good ones.
> The good ones don't exist.
>
> The first 12 pics in this gallery were all taken by me on Sunday, June
> 28, 2009.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/2009
>
> That's just one day's output, and I skipped a lot of them because I
> need to go to bed.
> Show me 12 pics that you've EVER taken that compare with those.
> You won't. You can't. You suck.
>
>
>
>

The difference between you and me is I make a living with my cameras,
you only fantasise about doing that.

How much have you made from shooting tame "tamelife" this year? ROTFL.

I make more money in a day taking photos like you stole a copy of and
called "The one legged groom" than you made so far this year from all
your photos. Who the Jackass?

--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:42 am
From: "Jeff R."

"D-Mac" <ping.me@news.group> wrote in message
news:7ar8r1F20ke0vU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Yeah... They're tame ones in a refuge. You can walk right up to the nest -
> if you're game to risk a pecking... I'm told.
>
> Ask him for a link to the shot of his car parked in front of them!
>
>
> --
> D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
<disgusting sig snipped>

Well, as far as you're concerned, Doug, I'd settle for just one shot of a
tame "stepped-out" panorama to prove how clever you are.

You know... like the one you brag about here:
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html

The pano you are too gutless to admit you can't do.

Mind you... you can grab some pretty useful shots:
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/composition.jpg

Very useful!
I show it to my students as an example of "what-not-to-do" (under any
circumstances).

LOL!

--
Jeff R.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:43 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-29 00:29:40 -0700, D-Mac <ping.me@news.group> said:

> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-06-28 23:35:28 -0700, Annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> said:
>>
>>> D-Mac, everybody knows why you only show us your crap shots and never
>>> show the good ones.
>>> The good ones don't exist.
>>>
>>> The first 12 pics in this gallery were all taken by me on Sunday, June
>>> 28, 2009.
>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/2009
>>>
>>> That's just one day's output, and I skipped a lot of them because I
>>> need to go to bed.
>>> Show me 12 pics that you've EVER taken that compare with those.
>>> You won't. You can't. You suck.
>>
>> Nice osprey family Bret.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah... They're tame ones in a refuge. You can walk right up to the
> nest - if you're game to risk a pecking... I'm told.
>
> Ask him for a link to the shot of his car parked in front of them!

Boy! Are you bitter!!

Those are good shots of an osprey family, regardless of who the
photographer was , and what equipment he used. Give credit where credit
is due.
...and of all the birds of prey, tame ospreys, maybe in Oz.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:58 am
From: "Jeff R."

Hey Bret!
You've got some real competition here:
http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix2/index.html
If you can overlook the "Trial" software being used by a so-called
"professional", then you can see how a *real* man takes caged shots.

Well... how Douggie does at least.

You'd never pick these for caged beasts!
Not if you ignore the concrete, the fences, the sleepy looks etc etc...

(Hope he's going to pay for that software some day.)

You'll have to be quick, though. Douggie will probably pull that page real
soon now.
(Hehehe...)

--
Jeff R.

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 1:05 am
From: "Jeff R."

"D-Mac" <ping.me@news.group> wrote in message
news:7ar988F20tt09U1@mid.individual.net...

> How much have you made from shooting tame "tamelife" this year? ROTFL.
>
> I make more money in a day taking photos like you stole a copy of and
> called "The one legged groom" than you made so far this year from all your
> photos. Who the Jackass?

I don't know about jackasses, but look! The old goat has posted a
self-portrait on his site:

http://www.mendosus.com/photography/old-goat.jpg

You'll find the original at http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix2/index.html until
he takes it down in 5,4,3....

LOL!

--
Jeff R.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 1:54 am
From: Ofnuts

John A. wrote:

> I heard of a fellow doing something that once to folks stealing
> bandwidth on his wireless network. He had a Linux box set up as his
> router, and for systems not on the whitelist he piped all incoming
> images through imagemagick to blur them.

Seen that too... also included random vertical/horizontal flip.
--
Bertrand

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 2:13 am
From: D-Mac

Jeff R. wrote:
>
> "D-Mac" <ping.me@news.group> wrote in message
> news:7ar8r1F20ke0vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Yeah... They're tame ones in a refuge. You can walk right up to the
>> nest - if you're game to risk a pecking... I'm told.
>>
>> Ask him for a link to the shot of his car parked in front of them!
>>
>>
>> --
>> D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
> <worse luck>
>
> Hey Bret!
> You've got some real competition here:
> http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix2/index.html
> If you can overlook the "Trial" software being used by a so-called
> "professional", then you can see how a *real* man takes caged shots.
>
> Well... how Douggie does at least.
>
> You'd never pick these for caged beasts!
> Not if you ignore the concrete, the fences, the sleepy looks etc etc...
>
> (Hope he's going to pay for that software some day.)
>
> You'll have to be quick, though. Douggie will probably pull that page
> real soon now.
> (Hehehe...)
>
> --
> Jeff R.
>
>
It's a funny thing about FotoPlayer. Dhina doesn't mind in the least if
you use it as a skin for the free software called "Jalbum" it needs to
function. D-mac.info is a hobby site. Hardly warrants buying a license
when it's quite legal to use the demo stuff.

I uselicensed versions of it on my commercial web sites for the shopping
cart function... If I make a buck out of it, why shouldn't Dhina?

Unlike you Jeffrey... I don't have to steal other people's images in
order to get traffic to my site and try to big note myself. You are just
a nasty little rodent like the Jackasses you find comfort in aligning
yourself with.

So here is official notice that you are in breach of Australian
copyright laws. Take my images off your web site within 24 hours or
suffer the consequences.
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/copyright-information.htm

Maybe one day I'll see you lined up for the street van meals Jeff? Don't
worry mate, I won't hold a grudge. In fact I'll give you an extra ladle
of soup and maybe one of Margie's healthy buns mate.

Just don't go selling any property in the next 90 days if you intend to
keep the images you stole from my web sites. OK? If you do the person
you sell it to is going to me might peeved when he has the sale voided
and you have the find the money to pay for your theft.

--
D-Mac...

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 2:15 am
From: D-Mac

Jeff R. wrote:
>
> "D-Mac" <ping.me@news.group> wrote in message
> news:7ar8r1F20ke0vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Yeah... They're tame ones in a refuge. You can walk right up to the
>> nest - if you're game to risk a pecking... I'm told.
>>
>> Ask him for a link to the shot of his car parked in front of them!
>>
>>
>> --
>> D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
> <disgusting sig snipped>
>
> Well, as far as you're concerned, Doug, I'd settle for just one shot of
> a tame "stepped-out" panorama to prove how clever you are.
>
> You know... like the one you brag about here:
> http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html
>
> The pano you are too gutless to admit you can't do.
>
> Mind you... you can grab some pretty useful shots:
> http://www.mendosus.com/photography/composition.jpg
>
> Very useful!
> I show it to my students as an example of "what-not-to-do" (under any
> circumstances).
>
> LOL!
>
> --
> Jeff R.

Students?
How long have you been holding courses at the Jail? Or are you in it?
Maybe that's why you use a fake address?

--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:21 am
From: Ron Hunter

John Turco wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> <heavily edited for brevity>
>
>> times as much time each day in newsgroups as I currently do.
>> I have reached an age where I am very aware of the ticking of the clock,
>> and I would rather have my pleasure than spend my seconds of life
>> editing newsgroup posts. If you don't like that attitude, by all means
>> add me to your 'twit list'. Life is way too short to waste doing
>> something you don't need to do, and which gives you no pleasure.
>
>
> Hello, Ron:
>
> They're "ganging up" on you, old man! <g> Seriously, your lack of editing
> skill seems to be the rule (rather than the exception), on Usenet.
>
> Incidentally, >everybody< must be aware of "the ticking of the clock," at
> one time or another. Regardless of age, life can end suddenly, due to
> accidents, natural disasters, etc.
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

Yes, and yesterday I got word that another of my brother's clock wound
down. He was found lying in his back yard, dead, hands clutching at his
chest. They estimate he died some time Saturday afternoon. Another
trip, another funeral. We were 9, now we are 4. He was 77. He is the
one who taught me many things, photography was one of them, using his
Argus C3.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:22 am
From: Ron Hunter

John Turco wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:26:10 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's easy to see how much a poster values their communications --
>>>>> it's indicated by the care they take to make them clear and
>>>>> comprehensible. There's no point in reading posts which the author
>>>>> himself clearly thinks are worthless.
>>>> I am not able to judge, and wouldn't try, the value of my posts, if any,
>>>> for any single individual. For some, they may be useful, for others a
>>>> crashing waste of time. In any case, I have no interest in spending
>>>> several hours a day on newsgroups so that I can edit every post I make
>>>> in order to squeeze every non-essential byte from the post.
>
> <heavily edited for brevity>
>
>>> I'll close with this. Hours? At your advanced age, time should
>>> seem to be advancing much more rapidly, not more slowly! :)
>>>
>> And you assume this is the only newsgroup to which I post?
>> It is one of those I post LEAST to.
>
>
> Hello, Ron:
>
> According to Google Groups,, you're the all-time top poster, here
> in <news:rec.photo.digital>. It's also the group, in which you've
> contributed your most articles:
>
> rec.photo.digital - 15,000+ (starting in January, 2002)
>
> All newsgroups - 35,500+ (starting in December, 2001)
>
> You've certainly been pretty damned prolific, Ron! <g>
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
Does that include the Mozilla server groups? If not, then you should
probably double that count.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:26 am
From: Bob Larter

Ron Hunter wrote:
> John Turco wrote:
[...]
>> Incidentally, >everybody< must be aware of "the ticking of the clock," at
>> one time or another. Regardless of age, life can end suddenly, due to
>> accidents, natural disasters, etc.

> Yes, and yesterday I got word that another of my brother's clock wound
> down. He was found lying in his back yard, dead, hands clutching at his
> chest. They estimate he died some time Saturday afternoon. Another
> trip, another funeral. We were 9, now we are 4. He was 77. He is the
> one who taught me many things, photography was one of them, using his
> Argus C3.

I'm sorry to hear that, Ron. One of my uncles gave me my first camera, &
taught me a lot about photography & art. I lost him about 5 years ago:
<http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//Rick%2BNaomi700.jpg>

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

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:23 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <zH31m.2601$dz7.56@newsfe04.iad>, Martin Brown says...
>
>> Interpolation of the Bayer array is generally well behaved except for
>> pathological test cases designed to break it. And even then the modern
>> heuristics for processing the sampled chroma data do very well.
>
> Lots of "pathological" cases in real world scenes. Green leaves against
> a blue sky, urban scenes just to make a couple of examples. Colour
> changes between adjacent pixels are quite common. There are even colour
> changes within a pixel, which no sensor is able to capture and just
> averages out.

You have several serious misconceptions abotu what happens when a real 3
colour scene is imaged by a Bayer sensor. The green channel carries over
50% of the luminance information and when corrected with the red and
blue channels it gives a very good proxy for luminance. It is true that
the edges for red and blue detail are necessarily soft since the best
that software can guess at is based on the luminance at a green site and
the signal at blue cells on either side. But that is usually still good
enough. The sorts of pathological target that Bayer fails to get right
are where you try to photograph a Bayer mask at the right distance to
match the sensor scale and offset so that the green channels are imaged
by the red and blue masks and vice versa.
>
>> You are tilting at windmills. The loss of chroma information through
>> subsampling has only minor deleterious effects. Foveon is a cute
>> technology but it solves a non-problem. The human eye has a higher
>> resolution for luminance than it does for chrominance.
>
> The human eye is not the measure of all things. You want to know if the
> sensor has a certain resolution or not. If it is unable to capture
> changes between adjacent pixels, the effective resolution is lower than
> the nominal one (i.e. the pixel count).

Not at all. The effective resolution for *colour* is lower (although not
by all that much) but the resolution for luminance is pretty close to
the theoretical limit for the sensor. That is why it works so well. The
eye cannot see fine colour detail so well but it is very sensitive to
luminance. If the luminance is accurate then small chroma errors are
effectively invisible until you zoom in to pixel level detail.
>
> To draw another parallel, the human eye can't see colours when it's too
> dark. Should image sensors therefore also switch to monochrome in low
> light levels, i.e. at night?

There is some advantage in doing so since you can illuminate wildlife
with IR floodlights that do not disturb them. You should note here that
it was not until *1971* that it was possible with colour film technology
to reproduce on colour film what the human eye would see under faint
lighting if it was more sensitive.

All the early colour astronomincal photographs have way too much pink
and blue and no green (which is actually the brightest nebula emmission
but just happens to sit on the safelight wavelength for colour film).
>
>>> There is no law of physics stating that a full colour sensor must have
>>> more noise than a Bayer sensor.
>> But it must contain at least 2N more active sensor sites and arrange to
>> filter the light into at least RGB.
>
> You are making assumptions about the implementation here. See my other
> post.

You can do multiple exposures with different filters on the same sensor
array. Iff you can be sure the subject will not move or alter in any
way. An assumption that is invalid in almost all circumstances.

That is how colour images are done in professional astronomy where
having reliable raw values for every pixel in each waveband really
matters. And most of the objects with a few exceptions change appearance
only on geological timescales. But apart from for quantitative
scientific imaging the Bayer matrix is good enough in all practical
circumstances.

Regards,
Martin Brown

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:26 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <270620091120268880%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> and there's a luminance change in those examples, so a bayer sensor
>> will resolve it.
>
> Not necessarily, and even if there was it would not help a Bayer sensor
> to accurately reconstruct the image.
>
>> how does colour change within a pixel???
>
> Scene having more detail than the sensor can capture?

All natural scenes meet that criterion there is always finer detail than
the medium can support. The imaging device lens or mirror limits the
highest spatial frequency that makes it to the sensor.

The Bayer demosaic is a *lot* more effective than you seem to think.

Regards,
Martin Brown

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:35 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>

bugbear wrote:
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>> At some point the number of photons/photoelectrons captured during a
>> typical exposure will become so low that photon noise WILL become an
>> issue. At any reasonable exposure there are only so many photons
>> striking each square micron of detector surface area. We may not be
>> there yet, in spite of warnings, but we cannot go TOO small without
>> running into this problem.
>
> Can any passing astronomers comment on this - I strongly
> suspect photon calculations are meat and drink in that
> sphere.

They used to be an issue in the film days when reciprocity failure would
cause faint image detail to never be recorded at room temperature. All
sorts of witchcraft involving baking in nitrogen and hydrogen gas was
used to make film behave better at low light levels.

By comparison CCDs are fairly well behaved. A photon impact releases and
electron with some decent percentage quantum efficiency independent of
the rate of arrival. What hurts is thermal noise build up during the
exposure so astro CCDs are actively cooled, and thermal noise/IR photons
emitted by the readout amplifier in the corner or the chip.

A reasonable introduction to the issues in astronomical CCDs is at:
http://www.astrophys-assist.com/educate/noise/noise.htm

Regards,
Martin Brown

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Olympus EP-1 beats D3 at low ISO
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ca418075fb445b10?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:20 am
From: Bob Larter

John Turco wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> Charles wrote:
>>> "PDM" <pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:4a44ea49$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:c1368505-65e2-4a72-ba8a-e8a15524b500@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Honest! :)
>>>>>
>>>>> See what the EP-1 can do with a scene with no DR and no moving parts?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32227706
>>>> No moving parts? What about the release button, and the lens release
>>>> button and all the other buttons, et al
>>> Yup. Like Rich ... no moving parts.
>> Especially his brain...
>
>
> Hello, Bob:
>
> You mean that, Rich Anderson really >has< a brain? That's news to me! :-J

Well, a small cluster of neurons, huddling together for warmth.

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

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:20 am
From: Bob Larter

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:26:02 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Calvin T wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:25:36 -0500, Calvin T <ct@spamprevention.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:26:35 -0500, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/27/09 6:12 PM, in article pq8d451fdh4c2k0hs59u7dh750mr7ap5tn@4ax.com,
>>>>> "Calvin T" <ct@spamprevention.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:19:41 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wonderful sequence, from Qatar :
>>>>>> You don't get out much, do you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=32237552
>>>>>> The poster/photographer there is a moron. I've not seen one heron species
>>>>>> yet that didn't fish that way. This allows for plenty of time to set up for
>>>>>> the "strike shot". Then you just remain as patient as the heron. Some of
>>>>>> the more interesting photos I've taken are where a heron will form a
>>>>>> full-circle umbrella with their wings. Makes for some very artistic
>>>>>> compositions with the included reflection in mirror-still waters. The fish
>>>>>> will look for and are attracted to this shade in warmer climates and waters
>>>>>> when in direct sunlight. I am amazed then at how they can hold their
>>>>>> outstretched wings so still for so long. I think my most favorite heron
>>>>>> shot is where an alligator on the bank was just a yard away from the heron.
>>>>>> The heron determined to keep fishing/waiting there, the alligator hoping to
>>>>>> steal either fish or heron. It was a tense 20-30 minutes of waiting on my
>>>>>> part. The heron won his stance, the alligator too slow to get either when
>>>>>> the heron was finally successful. A "keeper" photograph the results.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Care to share?
>>>> Paying customers only (more than you're probably worth in total), and
>>>> that's only if I like you or your values. Quite the limited and privileged
>>>> audience. You are not among them, I assure you.
>>>
>>> Oh, what the hell. Let's take pity on these basement-living shut-ins one
>>> more time this month.
>>>
>>> Here's a shot while I was setting up for the long wait, a commercially
>>> useless one. Long before anything interesting happened. Slight correction,
>>> this is not a Great Blue Heron (White Phase) as I was remembering it, it's
>>> a Great Egret. However, they hunt no differently than all herons I've ever
>>> photographed.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3344/3669518856_8d7af1185b_o.jpg
>> "This photo is currently unavailable"
>>
>> What a surprise...
>
> I saw it before. I've got it again.
>
> Try again.

Nope, I'm still getting the same error.

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 2:22 am
From: Eric Stevens

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:20:41 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:26:02 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Calvin T wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:25:36 -0500, Calvin T <ct@spamprevention.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:26:35 -0500, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/27/09 6:12 PM, in article pq8d451fdh4c2k0hs59u7dh750mr7ap5tn@4ax.com,
>>>>>> "Calvin T" <ct@spamprevention.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:19:41 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wonderful sequence, from Qatar :
>>>>>>> You don't get out much, do you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=32237552
>>>>>>> The poster/photographer there is a moron. I've not seen one heron species
>>>>>>> yet that didn't fish that way. This allows for plenty of time to set up for
>>>>>>> the "strike shot". Then you just remain as patient as the heron. Some of
>>>>>>> the more interesting photos I've taken are where a heron will form a
>>>>>>> full-circle umbrella with their wings. Makes for some very artistic
>>>>>>> compositions with the included reflection in mirror-still waters. The fish
>>>>>>> will look for and are attracted to this shade in warmer climates and waters
>>>>>>> when in direct sunlight. I am amazed then at how they can hold their
>>>>>>> outstretched wings so still for so long. I think my most favorite heron
>>>>>>> shot is where an alligator on the bank was just a yard away from the heron.
>>>>>>> The heron determined to keep fishing/waiting there, the alligator hoping to
>>>>>>> steal either fish or heron. It was a tense 20-30 minutes of waiting on my
>>>>>>> part. The heron won his stance, the alligator too slow to get either when
>>>>>>> the heron was finally successful. A "keeper" photograph the results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Care to share?
>>>>> Paying customers only (more than you're probably worth in total), and
>>>>> that's only if I like you or your values. Quite the limited and privileged
>>>>> audience. You are not among them, I assure you.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, what the hell. Let's take pity on these basement-living shut-ins one
>>>> more time this month.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a shot while I was setting up for the long wait, a commercially
>>>> useless one. Long before anything interesting happened. Slight correction,
>>>> this is not a Great Blue Heron (White Phase) as I was remembering it, it's
>>>> a Great Egret. However, they hunt no differently than all herons I've ever
>>>> photographed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3344/3669518856_8d7af1185b_o.jpg
>>> "This photo is currently unavailable"
>>>
>>> What a surprise...
>>
>> I saw it before. I've got it again.
>>
>> Try again.
>
>Nope, I'm still getting the same error.

Now, it's just gone for me.

Eric Stevens

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:32 am
From: Chris H

In message <4A4855BD.9CECFCB2@concentric.net>, John Turco
<jtur@concentric.net> writes
>> American football is a game of set plays intended to advance the ball
>> in a particular direction. Because of the variety of set plays that
>> can be called, this allows for some excitement during the game. In
>> European football,

You mean world wide football. Football is global not European. It is
only the USA where it is not the main national sport.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: http://funbollywoodhollywood4u.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c5a0a34147eac16b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:51 am
From: hotpooja4u

http://funbollywoodhollywood4u.blogspot.com/

--
Send from http://www.nonsolonews.net

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 1:13 am
From: "Charles E Hardwidge"

"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009062810251895335-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-06-28 10:16:14 -0700, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> said:
>
> As I said, I am just starting out on the climb up this learning curve, and
> I will probably find more suitable subjects for HDR in the future.

Bad luck might have made the picture ghastly but I've seen a more compelling
HDR photos that were helped by having good luck behind them. It's a credit
to you that you saw an opportunity and gave it a shake. The conversation was
interesting and there's always next time.

--
Charles E Hardwidge

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 1:51 am
From: D-Mac

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

According to clients what looks right is usually right ... HDR is not
always the best method to level out dynamic range. Examples like the one
you posted are not really looking right are they?

Most of us search for something different in the way of technique in
order to establish our own 'signature look'. HDR offers an ability to
grossly over produce effects in a search for individuality and in the
process destroy what we want to enjoy.

I think if it doesn't look right, it isn't right. I've been using image
enhancing software for many years. Some I make portraits with, others I
use to make landscapes with. Here is a portrait example:
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/tutorials/in-camera-hdr.htm Hardly
an example of HDR but I used Lucisart to obtain it.

Using software to blend images is OK I guess but there are other ways.
The lower photo in this pair is done entirely in-camera whilst the top
shot is blended from 3 images. Which one do you prefer?
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/tutorials/HDR-V-WDR.htm

My favourite enhancement software is produced by "Lucis". It enhances
detail and repairs some images but it's real benefit is in tone mapping
to produce HDR like results.

There are 2 different programs. One is version 3:
http://www.lucisart.com/lucisart-3-effects-features.htm

and the other is the pro version 6:
http://www.lucispro.com/lucis-artistic/lucis-pro-home-pages/sublime.htm

Unfortunately for those looking for "free" software, this is not it. The
basic version 3 is not exactly cheap and you have to pay serious money
for the Pro version. I fought with myself for many weeks before making
the decision to buy it. Having done that, I don't regret it but it's not
for everyone.

--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 4:15 am
From: ransley

On Jun 27, 10:31 pm, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
> reasonable results.
>
> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck

Is Photomatrix the best of these HDR programs, is there a difference
betweeen them in final results ?

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 1:18 am
From: "Ken"

"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:200906281617238930-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-06-28 16:02:29 -0700, "Matt Clara" <none@myexpense.com> said:
>
>> "Unbelievable" <nocontact@noaddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:q1ue45t8dnvp6l8lkluivt4vptesujojdn@4ax.com...
>>
>>> ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"?
>>>
>>> http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html
>>>
>>
>> Why, yes I have, thanks for asking. I've been using it for a couple of
>> months now. I shot this series of images on Friday, June 26, and
>> composed them into an HDRI last night.
>>
>> http://mattclara.com/misc/chris-clark-powerplant-HDRi-02b.jpg
>>
>> The effect here in this image is relatively subtle. As far as I'm
>> concerned, that's the key to a good HDR image. If it's obviously HDR
>> (and not a spectacular image), you've failed. The main thing you'll
>> observe here are an overall vibrance from the HDR as opposed to any of
>> the original images. Also, note the sky is virtually free of noise due
>> to the averaging of the images--these were shot at ISO 100 at 8, 15, and
>> 30 seconds--lots of noise in those, particularly noticeable in the sky.
>> I still went for a high-contrast image, where the HDR temptation is to
>> illuminate everything. I think it works nicely. Oh, and I had to do some
>> shop work to get the dude to hold still.
>
> ...and I am impressed with your work here.
>
> The example I was using was more of an improvisation and not well planned
> (there was also a degree of HDR ignorance).
>
> I can see the potential for Dynamic-Photo HDR, however I am using a Mac
> and their OSX implimentation in X-Server, is very clumsy & awkward as this
> stage. Perhaps once it is more polished and OSX native I will reconsider.
>
> For now I will plan my HDR shots better and continue with Photomatix.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck

http://www.pbase.com/moorlands

Hi you may be interested to know why about a week ago I started looking at
HDR? It is because I came across this gallery and was very impressed. Take
alook and let me know what you think. The guyuses Photomatix.

good luck

Ken

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 2:21 am
From: Eric Stevens

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:18:07 +0100, "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>news:200906281617238930-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2009-06-28 16:02:29 -0700, "Matt Clara" <none@myexpense.com> said:
>>
>>> "Unbelievable" <nocontact@noaddress.com> wrote in message
>>> news:q1ue45t8dnvp6l8lkluivt4vptesujojdn@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why, yes I have, thanks for asking. I've been using it for a couple of
>>> months now. I shot this series of images on Friday, June 26, and
>>> composed them into an HDRI last night.
>>>
>>> http://mattclara.com/misc/chris-clark-powerplant-HDRi-02b.jpg
>>>
>>> The effect here in this image is relatively subtle. As far as I'm
>>> concerned, that's the key to a good HDR image. If it's obviously HDR
>>> (and not a spectacular image), you've failed. The main thing you'll
>>> observe here are an overall vibrance from the HDR as opposed to any of
>>> the original images. Also, note the sky is virtually free of noise due
>>> to the averaging of the images--these were shot at ISO 100 at 8, 15, and
>>> 30 seconds--lots of noise in those, particularly noticeable in the sky.
>>> I still went for a high-contrast image, where the HDR temptation is to
>>> illuminate everything. I think it works nicely. Oh, and I had to do some
>>> shop work to get the dude to hold still.
>>
>> ...and I am impressed with your work here.
>>
>> The example I was using was more of an improvisation and not well planned
>> (there was also a degree of HDR ignorance).
>>
>> I can see the potential for Dynamic-Photo HDR, however I am using a Mac
>> and their OSX implimentation in X-Server, is very clumsy & awkward as this
>> stage. Perhaps once it is more polished and OSX native I will reconsider.
>>
>> For now I will plan my HDR shots better and continue with Photomatix.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
>
>http://www.pbase.com/moorlands
>
>Hi you may be interested to know why about a week ago I started looking at
>HDR? It is because I came across this gallery and was very impressed. Take
>alook and let me know what you think. The guyuses Photomatix.
>
>good luck
>

Impressive!

Eric Stevens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, June 29, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 9 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, June 29, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 9 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic