| ||||||
| | ||||||
|
Hello to All of my online friends, To all here in the USA and to my friends around the World........one done in remembrance of Martin Luther King on his birthday. He not only fought for the American Dream; he fought to stamp out inequality around the world. Many hugs from Roni
Letter by RoniElaine Thinking of You Tutorial by Leidy Image from the web Font: Segoe Print
| Really nice tut..I used a picture I took this morning when I was briefly charmed by our snowy landscape. The picture was taken while standing on my deck, then I used virtual painter on it in stead of the filter she used.. | ||
| |
rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Palestinians Under Attack - 15 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
* background - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c5aad211e6b58077?hl=en
* GONE FISHIN' WITH THE FAB 5D2 ! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7b5bd42536428df9?hl=en
* Questions about scanning my negatives as my output looks greenish! - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/278e0f77e8fd9bf3?hl=en
* Stealth photography - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bc18e971f8f9298d?hl=en
* Canon S50 power supply - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/46a74eaf544db90f?hl=en
* Why No Bulb or Cable Release Socket? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5a88867cb78e6f36?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 3:43 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:39:15 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <j8f4n4pkt8g36i6v50lmqda31nva6lvdlu@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:25:54 -0600, "HEMI - Powered"
>><none@none.giganews> wrote:
>>
>>>tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>>...
>>>
>>>>>Try travelling outside the US and you will find NO ONE is
>>>>>envious of the US
>>>>
>>>> You do like hyperbole, don't you? In 2004, almost 35 million
>>>> people living in the US were foreign-born. I wouldn't use the
>>>> word "envious", but those people found something about the US
>>>> that was more appealing to them than their native country.
>>>>
>>>> To put that 35 million in perspective, that's about half of the
>>>> population of the UK.
>>>
>>>Tony, those emigrating from ALL other countries to the US, legally,
>>>are not envious per se, they SAW an advantage as you observe and
>>>took the steps necessary to come here. I was referring to those in
>>>other countries, both the Socialist ones in Europe and the Third
>>>World who seem to hate the US precisely BECAUSE we have wealth,
>>>freedom, safety, protections from despots, job and education
>>>opportunities, an outstanding medical system, and by FAR the most
>>>freedom of choice and the LOWEST taxes of ANY other country,
>>>period. It is these things and more that cause outsiders to HATE us
>>>because they're stuck in places that confiscate their wealth,
>>>restrict their freedoms, rights, and protecions, and have little to
>>>offer.
>>
>>Bullshit. The people in other countries who "hate" the US are people
>>who have either real or imagined reasons to hate us because we have
>>some direct effect on their lives. They don't hate us because of what
>>*our* lives are like; they hate us because of how they feel our
>>actions will affect them.
>
>That is true. The US is seen as a rouge state and a bully by most of
>the world. People will say that Americans individually are nice people
>(well a lot of them are you get jerks like Hemi and Stephen every
>where) it is what the Us stands for they hate.
Challenging you to provide facts to back you your opinions and
propaganda doesn't make us "jerks," but I can see how you might think
so.
>
>Supporting Isreal's war crimes
>Invading countries
>Killing several 100 thousand civilians as "collateral damage" and
>"suspected terrorists" (which no one believes)
>The US stands for torture and removing human rights
Good propaganda bumper-sticker lines. Half-truths at best, but
mostly outright lies.
>
>NO ONE outside the US sees the US as standing for freedom and democracy.
Really? You speak for every person on the planet?
>
>
>
>>They are not interested in what our lives are like in the US or in the
>>conditions you describe above.
>
>Not particularly but thanks to US TV programs we "know" that all
>Americans are loud, arrogant, overweight and materialistic and that
>they are destroying the world in their consumption and only care about
>themselves and oil.
Oh, that must be it. You actually believe that stupid television
shows actually reflect the "real" America.
Maybe it's also true that all Brits are like Benny Hinn and Bean?
>
>Right ot wrong that is what most of the world thinks. IT will take a
>VERY long time for the US to change that perception
>
>> They are only interested in us when
>>our foreign policy, our economic reach, or our physical presence in
>>their country has some direct negative effect on their lives.
>
>The trouble is the US has had a direct negative effect on so many
>people's lives around the world
That's obviously your spin on things.
Don't forget, you would be speaking German if not for the U.S.
"meddling" in world affairs. Of course, you may prefer that because
it that had happened then Israel would never had been created and that
inconvenient "Jewish problem" would be long gone.
>
>
>>They don't hate us because of our wealth.
>
>Quite so, when you had it. The US is bankrupt now. People liked the US
>lifestyle which is similar to Australia, however many also like the
>lifestyle in France, Spain and Greece. (More Brits retire there o than
>the US by a long way)
>
>> They hate us because we use
>>our wealth to interfere with them.
>
>That is the piont
>
>>They don't hate us because of our
>>freedom.
>
>Because the US is no more free than the vast majority of other countries
>(and a lot more bigoted than some)
Hmmmm... that must be why the world is still trying to come here in
droves, and one of our biggest challenges as a country is to regulate
all that immigration.
>
>>They hate us because we try to impose our concept of freedom
>>on them.
>
>Quite so. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan want a US style democracy and
>"freedom"
What exactly do they want? The same sharia law that you seem to want
as well?
We didn't enforce our Constitution on anyone. For example, it was the
Iraqis who defined their own democracy. We are just there to help it
get a foothold.
>
>>They don't hate us because they are stuck in places that
>>confiscate their wealth, or restrict their freedoms, rights, and
>>protections. They hate us because our government takes some action to
>>change their way of life in some way that they do not want to change.
>
>Tony that is the best assessment of the US I have seen in a long while.
>( are you sure you are an American ? :-)
>
>Hopefully, if he lives long enough, Obama may be able to sort reverse
>some of the damage that Bush has done to the US
You mean like compromise with terrorists in the belief that you can
actually negotiate with them?
== 2 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:07 am
From: Chris H
In message <glo8n45jvotma1ps62em18g76nn35hctpm@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:48:03 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>Apply all of this logic to Bin Laden for us.
>>
>>He hates the US because...
>>
>>It interferes in other countries
>>It removes the freedoms
>>it is only interested in oil not people
>
>Yes, you have swallowed the Marxist propaganda hook,
Not with my current security clearance
> line and sinker.
>Each one of those statements is a lie.
You and reality do not exist in the same space
>If we are just after the oil, then where is it? All that free oil we
>are accused of stealing isn't finding its way over here, and last I
>checked OPEC is still in control of production.
Now that confirms you are very simplistic and don't have a real grasp of
what is going on.
>>AQ's main aim was to remove the US asset Saddam Hussain and permit the
>>Iraqi people to return to an Islamic government which is what they are
>>trying to do but the US keeps holding up progress.
>
>Tell me, Chris, are you in favor of your fair country being in the
>same situation? After all, there is a significant minority in your
>country who are working to have Great Britian submit to sharia law.
Not at all again you miss understand. The person who was calling for the
introduction of SOME sharia law was the head of the church of England.
My view is that ALL religious law should be removed fro secular state
law.
>>Bin Laden also hated the US for interfering in many countries and
>>killing thousands of innocent Islamic civilians
>
>You are forgetting that we are the only reason that he and his merry
>band of insurgents were able to kick the Soviets
And the Americans
>out of Afghanistan.
>He is even less grateful than the current crop of far-left Europeans
>like yourself.
The US was warned this would happen BEFORE they started training them
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 3 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:39 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:09:19 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
<Poppa_de_Top@blasted.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:25:54 -0600, HEMIROID - Powered wrote:
>
>> tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>> ...
>>
>>>>Try travelling outside the US and you will find NO ONE is
>>>>envious of the US
>>>
>>> You do like hyperbole, don't you? In 2004, almost 35 million
>>> people living in the US were foreign-born. I wouldn't use the
>>> word "envious", but those people found something about the US
>>> that was more appealing to them than their native country.
>>>
>>> To put that 35 million in perspective, that's about half of the
>>> population of the UK.
>>
>> Tony, those emigrating from ALL other countries to the US, legally,
>> are not envious per se, they SAW an advantage as you observe and
>> took the steps necessary to come here. I was referring to those in
>> other countries, both the Socialist ones in Europe and the Third
>> World who seem to hate the US precisely BECAUSE we have wealth,
>> freedom, safety, protections from despots, job and education
>> opportunities, an outstanding medical system, and by FAR the most
>> freedom of choice and the LOWEST taxes of ANY other country,
>> period. It is these things and more that cause outsiders to HATE us
>> because they're stuck in places that confiscate their wealth,
>> restrict their freedoms, rights, and protecions, and have little to
>> offer.
>
>You are getting close to your life-long goal, the be a COMPLETE idiot.
>
>Finally, you are nearing something akin to a real accomplishment of sorts.
More mature and enlightened examples of insults from the scarecrow...
== 4 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:39 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:25:10 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
<Poppa_de_Top@blasted.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:41:18 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:
>
>> an inviolate document like our
>> Constitution.
>
>Your Prez doesn't agree.
>
>At a Presidential meeting:
>
>"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case
>that the provisions in this [proposed] law undermine the Constitution."
>
>"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's
>just a god-damned piece of paper!"
>
>Verified and confirmed by three attendees.
And you were one of them?
== 5 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:40 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 18 Jan 2009 01:17:56 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:22:39 -0600, "HEMI - Powered"
>> <none@none.giganews> wrote:
>>>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>>> Not at all you have a 20th century conventional military . this
>>>> is why it is loosing two wars at once in the 21st century
>>>
>>>Not hardly, but whatever it is, it is FAR, FAR, FAR ahead of yours!
>>>YOUR country gutted the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force and so
>>>drastically cut back on the Army and Marines that you no longer
>>>have a strategic military force, Period.
>
>> As evidenced by the embarassment of a UK warship being captured by the
>> Iranian Navy and then all but begging to be let go while Iran used
>> them as a huge propaganda tool. I suspect if that were a U.S. Navy
>> ship captured in international waters, then the Iranian Navy would
>> have ceased to exist.
>
>You must have been watching one of those US news programmes again. It
>wasn't a warship, it was an inflatable :-)
Given the cutbacks in the Royal Navy, I just assumed that an
inflatable with a few armed sailors was the new battleship.
== 6 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:42 am
From: "HEMI - Powered"
Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
The rant is the demented brainchild of one Gaston Ryan Coake who
thinks he is the net kop for me, Stephen. Just ignore him and he
will go away as he is a common poltroon troll who only thrives on
continued attention to his lugubrious misanthrophic bilge.
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:41:34 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
> <Poppa_de_Top@blasted.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:50:50 -0600, HEMIROID - Powered wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry is not only a deep thinker,
>>
>>Bwahahahahahahaha!
>>
>>Back on the old Superior Intellect high-horse, I see!
>>
>>Well, that horse has bucked and sent you tumbling many times
>>before, Jer, and it will again.
>>
>>Count on it.
>>
>>And speaking of counting, I've lost count of how many times
>>you've been shot down, proven wrong, and outright humiliated.
>>But I can dig out the posts and repost them for ya, if ya want.
>>
>>I think my fave was when you, the subordinate and supervised
>>semi-engineer, was completely dissected, garotted and chopped
>>into little pieces by a real, full-fledged engineer in
>>ABPVehicles.
>>
>>He asked you for equations to back up your statements, and you
>>had none. He gave you equations that proved everything he has
>>stated, and you couldn't refute them, and probably didn't even
>>understand them, so you kept your flap closed for once in your
>>pathetic life.
>>
>>Your very own profession for your entire career, and you just
>>couldn't keep up. Which is why you never made it to full
>>engineer. You were classically hoist on your very own personal
>>petard, retard.
>>
>>So what did you do after all that back and forth debate that
>>finally blew up in your face?
>>
>>You slunk away.
>>
>>Yep, as Theodor Seuss Geisel put it so humorously, 'slink ...
>>slank ...slunk'.
>>
>>"Back to the thicket slunk
>>The guilty serpent."
>>
>>as spake Milton.
>>
>>If you can't keep up in your own profession, how pathetically
>>stupid it is for you go off rambling about things you know far
>>less about.
>>
>>Deep thinker, Jer? Not even close. As always, you overestimate
>>yourself.
>>
>>I'm sure you've heard OF Robert Burns, the poet, but probably
>>haven't read much of his work other than what was force-fed to
>>you in school.
>>
>>He must have had someone just like you in mind when he wrote
>>about a particular trait you sorely lack in his aptly titled
>>work, 'To A Louse':
>>
>>O wad some Power the giftie gie us,
>>To see oursels as ithers see us!
>>It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
>>An' foolish notion:
>>What airs in dress an' gait wad lae'e us, An' ev'n devotion!
>>
>>Oh, OK, here's a translation for your Massive Intellect:
>>
>>O would some Power, the gift to give us, To see ourselves as
>>others see us! It would from many a blunder free us, And,
>>foolish notion: What airs of dress and bearing would leave us,
>>And even pridefullness!
>>
>>
>>> but he CAN back up all his assertions quite easily.
>>
>>Well, up to this point in your life, you haven't done a very
>>good job of it at all, in /any/ area.
>>
>>You have been asked countless times by countless people to back
>>up your statements, but all you ever do is back them up with
>>more uncited allegations.
>>
>>Do you even know /how/ to provide a citation? Or provide a
>>/correct/ quotation?
>>
>>C'mon Jer, even in Junior High and High School you are taught
>>how to do that. Were you absent during all those days? OD-ed on
>>prunes, perhaps, and unable to leave the house?
>>
>>Take the advice you've given so many others who didn't need it.
>>Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk.
>>
>>Well, you talk a lot, but beyond that, all you do is slither
>>around.
>
>
> If anyone can provide a translation to the above rant, please do
> so. The best I can make out of it is that our three-name friend
> thinks he is smarter than everyone else on the planet
>
He's nothing but a common, ordinary stalker who thinks he owns
Usenet and is willing to spend his days writing mordant rants about
people who he feels are not worthy of his respect. However, like
all those who spew forth mordant codswallop, he fails to notice
that his pecksniffian rants are nothing more than HIM looking into
the mirror and seeing a sad person reflected back.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 7 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:43 am
From: "HEMI - Powered"
Gaston Ryan Coake added these comments in the current discussion
du jour ...
> Path:
> border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad.newshost
> ing.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwin
> ds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com
> !post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe01.iad.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-
> for-mail From: Gaston Ryan Coake <Poppa_de_Top@blasted.org>
> Organization: Prunemangeurs Clique Stoppers, Ltd.
> Subject: Re: Palestinians Under Attack
> Message-Id: <pan.2009.01.18.15.41.32.708761@numb_and_incoherent>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> References: <g302n4dpu3ufeu6s59j6vi61k4smrnj4ir@4ax.com>
> <pan.2009.01.17.02.39.50.790201@numb_and_incoherent>
> <1jd3n49jclps6qtca7adq7ieobb33d713n@4ax.com>
> <Xns9B964FE48D507ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>
> <QtyS9lGt4ecJFAvl@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>
> <tdt3n499gasv8sno2r024qjgh1dv85a668@4ax.com>
> <Xns9B967EBF82FC2ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131>
> <j8f4n4pkt8g36i6v50lmqda31nva6lvdlu@4ax.com>
> <gktilh0s4g@news7.newsguy.com>
> <3ik4n4tegms6s0uj145nau291c022vfic6@4ax.com>
> <ukp4n4hh6lb3lfd6ram5e4d507ld8snl21@4ax.com>
> <Xns9B9731977E771ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131> Reply-To:
> Alcoholics Unanimous User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Drunkenly
> Crawled Across the Table) X-No-Archive: yes
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Lines: 100
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.86.25.219
> X-Complaints-To: internet.abuse@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: newsfe01.iad 1232293294 24.86.25.219 (Sun, 18 Jan 2009
> 15:41:34 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:41:34 UTC
> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:41:34 -0800
> Bytes: 4992
> Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.photo.digital:1585426
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:50:50 -0600, HEMIROID - Powered wrote:
>
>> Jerry is not only a deep thinker,
>
> Bwahahahahahahaha!
>
> Back on the old Superior Intellect high-horse, I see!
>
> Well, that horse has bucked and sent you tumbling many times
> before, Jer, and it will again.
>
> Count on it.
>
> And speaking of counting, I've lost count of how many times
> you've been shot down, proven wrong, and outright humiliated.
> But I can dig out the posts and repost them for ya, if ya want.
>
> I think my fave was when you, the subordinate and supervised
> semi-engineer, was completely dissected, garotted and chopped
> into little pieces by a real, full-fledged engineer in
> ABPVehicles.
>
> He asked you for equations to back up your statements, and you
> had none. He gave you equations that proved everything he has
> stated, and you couldn't refute them, and probably didn't even
> understand them, so you kept your flap closed for once in your
> pathetic life.
>
> Your very own profession for your entire career, and you just
> couldn't keep up. Which is why you never made it to full
> engineer. You were classically hoist on your very own personal
> petard, retard.
>
> So what did you do after all that back and forth debate that
> finally blew up in your face?
>
> You slunk away.
>
> Yep, as Theodor Seuss Geisel put it so humorously, 'slink ...
> slank ...slunk'.
>
> "Back to the thicket slunk
> The guilty serpent."
>
> as spake Milton.
>
> If you can't keep up in your own profession, how pathetically
> stupid it is for you go off rambling about things you know far
> less about.
>
> Deep thinker, Jer? Not even close. As always, you overestimate
> yourself.
>
> I'm sure you've heard OF Robert Burns, the poet, but probably
> haven't read much of his work other than what was force-fed to
> you in school.
>
> He must have had someone just like you in mind when he wrote
> about a particular trait you sorely lack in his aptly titled
> work, 'To A Louse':
>
> O wad some Power the giftie gie us,
> To see oursels as ithers see us!
> It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
> An' foolish notion:
> What airs in dress an' gait wad lae'e us, An' ev'n devotion!
>
> Oh, OK, here's a translation for your Massive Intellect:
>
> O would some Power, the gift to give us, To see ourselves as
> others see us!
> It would from many a blunder free us, And, foolish notion:
> What airs of dress and bearing would leave us, And even
> pridefullness!
>
>
>> but he CAN back up all his assertions quite easily.
>
> Well, up to this point in your life, you haven't done a very
> good job of it at all, in /any/ area.
>
> You have been asked countless times by countless people to back
> up your statements, but all you ever do is back them up with
> more uncited allegations.
>
> Do you even know /how/ to provide a citation? Or provide a
> /correct/ quotation?
>
> C'mon Jer, even in Junior High and High School you are taught
> how to do that. Were you absent during all those days? OD-ed on
> prunes, perhaps, and unable to leave the house?
>
> Take the advice you've given so many others who didn't need it.
> Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk.
>
> Well, you talk a lot, but beyond that, all you do is slither
> around.
>
>
> --
> Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
> Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
> Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an
> awful lot of talking... don't they?
> Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.
>
> -- Wizard Of Oz
>
Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
nx01.iad.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!
npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-
me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!
newsfe01.iad.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail
From: Gaston Ryan Coake <Poppa_de_Top@blasted.org>
Organization: Prunemangeurs Clique Stoppers, Ltd.
Subject: Re: Palestinians Under Attack
Message-Id: <pan.2009.01.18.15.41.32.708761@numb_and_incoherent>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <g302n4dpu3ufeu6s59j6vi61k4smrnj4ir@4ax.com>
<pan.2009.01.17.02.39.50.790201@numb_and_incoherent>
<1jd3n49jclps6qtca7adq7ieobb33d713n@4ax.com>
<Xns9B964FE48D507ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>
<QtyS9lGt4ecJFAvl@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>
<tdt3n499gasv8sno2r024qjgh1dv85a668@4ax.com>
<Xns9B967EBF82FC2ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131>
<j8f4n4pkt8g36i6v50lmqda31nva6lvdlu@4ax.com>
<gktilh0s4g@news7.newsguy.com> <3ik4n4tegms6s0uj145nau291c022vfic6@
4ax.com> <ukp4n4hh6lb3lfd6ram5e4d507ld8snl21@4ax.com>
<Xns9B9731977E771ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131>
Reply-To: Alcoholics Unanimous
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Drunkenly Crawled Across the
Table)
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 100
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.86.25.219
X-Complaints-To: internet.abuse@sjrb.ca
X-Trace: newsfe01.iad 1232293294 24.86.25.219 (Sun, 18 Jan 2009
15:41:34 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:41:34 UTC
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:41:34 -0800
Bytes: 4992
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.photo.digital:1585426
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:50:50 -0600, HEMIROID - Powered wrote:
> Jerry is not only a deep thinker,
Bwahahahahahahaha!
Back on the old Superior Intellect high-horse, I see!
Well, that horse has bucked and sent you tumbling many times
before, Jer,
and it will again.
Count on it.
And speaking of counting, I've lost count of how many times you've
been
shot down, proven wrong, and outright humiliated. But I can dig out
the
posts and repost them for ya, if ya want.
I think my fave was when you, the subordinate and supervised
semi-engineer, was completely dissected, garotted and chopped into
little
pieces by a real, full-fledged engineer in ABPVehicles.
He asked you for equations to back up your statements, and you had
none.
He gave you equations that proved everything he has stated, and you
couldn't refute them, and probably didn't even understand them, so
you
kept your flap closed for once in your pathetic life.
Your very own profession for your entire career, and you just
couldn't
keep up. Which is why you never made it to full engineer. You were
classically hoist on your very own personal petard, retard.
So what did you do after all that back and forth debate that
finally blew
up in your face?
You slunk away.
Yep, as Theodor Seuss Geisel put it so humorously, 'slink ... slank
...slunk'.
"Back to the thicket slunk
The guilty serpent."
as spake Milton.
If you can't keep up in your own profession, how pathetically
stupid it is
for you go off rambling about things you know far less about.
Deep thinker, Jer? Not even close. As always, you overestimate
yourself.
I'm sure you've heard OF Robert Burns, the poet, but probably
haven't read
much of his work other than what was force-fed to you in school.
He must have had someone just like you in mind when he wrote about
a
particular trait you sorely lack in his aptly titled work, 'To A
Louse':
O wad some Power the giftie gie us,
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lae'e us, An' ev'n devotion!
Oh, OK, here's a translation for your Massive Intellect:
O would some Power, the gift to give us, To see ourselves as others
see
us!
It would from many a blunder free us, And, foolish notion:
What airs of dress and bearing would leave us, And even
pridefullness!
> but he CAN back up all his assertions quite easily.
Well, up to this point in your life, you haven't done a very good
job of
it at all, in /any/ area.
You have been asked countless times by countless people to back up
your
statements, but all you ever do is back them up with more uncited
allegations.
Do you even know /how/ to provide a citation? Or provide a
/correct/
quotation?
C'mon Jer, even in Junior High and High School you are taught how
to
do that. Were you absent during all those days? OD-ed on prunes,
perhaps,
and unable to leave the house?
Take the advice you've given so many others who didn't need it.
Don't talk
the talk if you can't walk the walk.
Well, you talk a lot, but beyond that, all you do is slither
around.
--
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an
awful lot
of talking... don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.
-- Wizard Of Oz
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 8 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:45 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:56:41 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <cri4n4pi1bvenoi44qfjr3pcmdr3ll8l8e@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:22:39 -0600, "HEMI - Powered"
>><none@none.giganews> wrote:
>>>
>>>Not hardly, but whatever it is, it is FAR, FAR, FAR ahead of yours!
>>>YOUR country gutted the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force and so
>>>drastically cut back on the Army and Marines that you no longer
>>>have a strategic military force, Period.
>
>
>We have an extremely good military designed for 21 century conflicts.
>Come over to uk.current-events.terrorisum where we can discuss it.
>
Clearly there is no national elitism going on in that little corner of
cyberspace.....
>Actually the UK forces are essential to the US who screwed up in both
>Iraq and Afghanistan in fact the New 2007 US manuals on counter
>terrorism are virtually eh British manuals with US covers on them.
If you can do something better and are willing to help us out, we are
more than willing and happy to make use of it. We aren't so arrogant
as you are to actually believe that our fecal matter doesn't emit
oderous compounds.
>
>One of my friends spends half his time over at Bragg explain how to do
>CT work properly... The US military is so Last millennium
Remember, pride goeth before a fall.
>
>>As evidenced by the embarassment of a UK warship
>"Warship"? Three inflatables
>
>> being captured by the
>>Iranian Navy and then all but begging to be let go while Iran used
>>them as a huge propaganda tool.
>
>Actually the US won that encounter on several levels
>
>> I suspect if that were a U.S. Navy
>>ship captured in international waters, then the Iranian Navy would
>>have ceased to exist.
>
>The UK had to stop the US doing that and thereby loosing all the US
>military. You clearly have no idea of the game being played out in that
>incident
And you do? Why, because you consider yourself an expert in CT over
in a chatroom? If you have some facts, then please share them.
== 9 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:45 am
From: "HEMI - Powered"
Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>>"In Palestine"? a place which you now say does not exist.
>
> No, I never said the place called Palestine never existed. I
> said there was never a nation of Palestine.
That's right. Prior to the same 1947 UN Partitioning that created
Israel, Palestine was a region, not a country. As such, it was
under the control of multiple states throughout history.
>>
>>What evidence do you have for your lies and bigotry ?
>
> World history. No lies and no bigotry.
>
Funny, isn't it, that one of the biggest bigots, liars, and fools
on all of Usenet never produces any facts of his own to back up
such bilge.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 10 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:46 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:15:34 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <0hi4n49dp4pumvbe1qbsjncr0630679slf@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:41:49 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <Xns9B964FE48D507ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI - Powered
>>><none@none.supernews> writes
>>>>
>>>>We in the US have the strongest economy,
>>>
>>>!!!! The US Is bankrupt and owned by the Chinese and Arabs!!! This has
>>>been stated in most of the serious Us financial press
>>>
>>>> by far the most free
>>>>society with the least restrictions on our rights,
>>>
>>>COMPLETE CRAP The US is no better than 90% of other countries in the
>>>world
>>>
>>>>the most
>>>>protections,
>>>
>>>Nope Not so. In fact it has fewer personal protections
>>>
>>>>and the strongest national defense.
>>>
>>>Not at all you have a 20th century conventional military . this is why
>>>it is loosing two wars at once in the 21st century
>>>
>>>> Others are
>>>>jealous/envious of that and hate us for it.
>>>
>>>Try travelling outside the US and you will find NO ONE is envious of the
>>>US
>>
>>
>>Spoken like a true patriot from a former world empire that has been in
>>decline for decades and is rapidly spinning into the vortex of the
>>toilet.
>
>The Empire is long gone. So what is your point?
The decline has not finished. The UK is still spinning into a
cesspool of moral decay and just holds onto its socialist policies
until sharia law takes over.
== 11 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:50 am
From: "HEMI - Powered"
Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>>You must have been watching one of those US news programmes
>>again. It wasn't a warship, it was an inflatable :-)
>
> Given the cutbacks in the Royal Navy, I just assumed that an
> inflatable with a few armed sailors was the new battleship.
>
That was my point earlier, that the Royal Navy is no longer a
global strategic force capable of enforcing British foreign policy
abroad. It is nothing more today than a weak home islands defense
navy, and even then, incapable of repelling even the smallest
threat.
As I've said before, our vaunted allies are totally incapable of
mounting a strategic military operation or even a regional battle
should something like the Toronto Tower, Big Ben, Parliament,
Windsor Castle, the Eifel Tower and the like were to be attacked by
al Qaeda 9/11 style. The NATO countries would be impotent to use
military force to repel terrorists or to chase them to their
homelands and would again have to beg the United States to defend
them as we have so many times in the last 100+ years.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 12 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:55 am
From: "HEMI - Powered"
Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>>We have an extremely good military designed for 21 century
>>conflicts. Come over to uk.current-events.terrorisum where we
>>can discuss it.
>
> Clearly there is no national elitism going on in that little
> corner of cyberspace.....
The Brits do have a capable intelligence network and a reasonable
version of our Homeland Security for their airports, sea ports, and
cities but NOT a strategic navy, air force, or ground army capable
of a quick reaction battle in a foreign land much less something as
large as Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
>
>>Actually the UK forces are essential to the US who screwed up
>>in both Iraq and Afghanistan in fact the New 2007 US manuals on
>>counter terrorism are virtually eh British manuals with US
>>covers on them.
>
> If you can do something better and are willing to help us out,
> we are more than willing and happy to make use of it. We
> aren't so arrogant as you are to actually believe that our fecal
> matter doesn't emit oderous compounds.
>
UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were so small as to be
inconsequential. Witness where they were deployed, just as the
French and Germans were, in places with little likelihood of battle
casualties nor any ability to inflict casualties on the enemy. The
numbers of boots on the ground, naval ships at sea or aircraft in
the air over the war zone was VERY small compared to US figures and
even smaller when considering the dangers to those countries and
their combined populations. In short, just token deployments were
made because the Socialists neither have the money nor the will to
fight for their own freedom.
>
>>One of my friends spends half his time over at Bragg explain how
>>to do CT work properly... The US military is so Last millennium
>
> Remember, pride goeth before a fall.
>
>>The UK had to stop the US doing that and thereby loosing all the
>>US military. You clearly have no idea of the game being played
>>out in that incident
>
> And you do? Why, because you consider yourself an expert in CT
> over in a chatroom? If you have some facts, then please share
> them.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 13 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 5:19 am
From: Chris H
In message <85t8n4lks9sl8ivdja7comvmcpgphpsqsp@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On 18 Jan 2009 01:17:56 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:22:39 -0600, "HEMI - Powered"
>>> <none@none.giganews> wrote:
>>>>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>
>>>>> Not at all you have a 20th century conventional military . this
>>>>> is why it is loosing two wars at once in the 21st century
>>>>
>>>>Not hardly, but whatever it is, it is FAR, FAR, FAR ahead of yours!
>>>>YOUR country gutted the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force and so
>>>>drastically cut back on the Army and Marines that you no longer
>>>>have a strategic military force, Period.
>>
>>> As evidenced by the embarassment of a UK warship being captured by the
>>> Iranian Navy and then all but begging to be let go while Iran used
>>> them as a huge propaganda tool. I suspect if that were a U.S. Navy
>>> ship captured in international waters, then the Iranian Navy would
>>> have ceased to exist.
>>
>>You must have been watching one of those US news programmes again. It
>>wasn't a warship, it was an inflatable :-)
>
>Given the cutbacks in the Royal Navy, I just assumed that an
>inflatable with a few armed sailors was the new battleship.
I though you were in the military? Clearly not.
The 21st century conflicts are very different to those of the 20th
century. Some countries who have been fighting terrorists and counter
insurgency for the last 60 years have armed forces that are geared to
dealing with this new reality.
The sort of reality where a traditional battle ship is a liability. In
fact the major problem with most large naval ships is they are very
vulnerable to almost anything from all angles and have nowhere to hide.
Going back 50 years when the ship was over the horizon it disappeared
now their exact location is always known by everyone.
Unlike 50 years ago the lethality of small missiles means a battle ship
is at extreme risk from a terrorist with a pick up truck if it is within
3 miles of land. Also as the UK found in the Falklands ship destroying
missiles can be launched from the horizon and skim the waves making them
almost undetectable.
The only real use a battle ship has is shore bombardment but aircraft
are far more effective. This is why the UK has smaller warships with
helicopters and harriers. Most UK warships now have air capability.
Nuclear subs are little use . Most enemies are terrorists and irregular
troops. Even where the enemy was a country like Iraq (or Afghanistan or
Iran strategic nukes were not appropriate. Neither are tactical nukes.
The only place where the US could use tactical nukes is on the mainland
USA
This is partly why the UK is going to get rid of it's nuclear armed
subs. No point in having them there are far more cost effective systems
about.
Much as U2 spy planes are not much use when you have satellites and
inexpensive UAV's. U2's and the like have had their day Much as many
of the large bombers have. There is just no need for them. They did not
win in Vietnam and Cambodia but they did store up a lot of hate for the
US.
The world is changing and the US military is mainly a century behind.
Obama has recognised this so he will "gut" the US military and bring it
more into line with the European systems.
The will be a LOT of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the US military as
the dinosaurs and their friends are humanly dispatched.
As a final pint the reason why inflateables were used by the RN (and
the Iranians) and the UK warship was so far away ( about 5-6km) and
could not help was the whole area is sand banks and shallow water with
marshes either side.
Any warship larger than a UK frigate eg a US battle ship would have had
to have been even further away or run aground. Also the channels are
narrow so the battle ship would have been a sitting duck.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 14 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 7:02 am
From: Chris Malcolm
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2009 11:36:26 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On 18 Jan 2009 01:22:49 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess the best way to sum it up would be to ask, if he USA were so
>>>>> bad then why are so many of the world's people trying to come here?
>>>>
>>>>The coming change of government might have something to do with it. UK
>>>>BBC radio has interviewed several US expatriates who had left the
>>>>country in disgust at what the Bush regime was doing, and are now
>>>>returning.
>>
>>> The count will probably remain even. If pre-election promises are
>>> kept, an equal number of Americans will leave if Obama becomes
>>> President.
>>
>>That's interesting. They must have identified a country to go to which
>>has the right kind of politics. What country is that?
> A different one. It's all bluster anyway.
> It's about as silly as the person who says that he left the US because
> of his disgust at the Bush regime. It wouldn't take too many fingers
> to count the number of Americans who can and would pack up and move to
> another country solely because of their reaction to the Bush regime.
> What's "several", Malcolm? Auntie found a few American ex-pats who
> were willing to provide a sound bite. What? Maybe four? Six? How
> many of the "several" had other reasons to become ex-pats, but also
> had an aversion to Bush's policies? Would the interviewer probe into
> this and ruin a good story?
> I suspect that if I'd drive down to Osceola County (where there is a
> large contingent of British ex-pats) and interview enough of them, I
> could find "several" who would say they would return to the UK now
> that Blair is out. I could probably find a larger group who would be
> willing to return now that Thatcher is out, but just haven't gotten
> around to it yet.
Of course you could. I'm not sure if you think you're disagreeing with
me, but from my point of view it looks as though we don't disagree.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 15 of 15 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 5:50 am
From: Chris H
In message <s7t8n4995d1skgeb8sm2fticbbc3kort1c@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:56:41 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <cri4n4pi1bvenoi44qfjr3pcmdr3ll8l8e@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:22:39 -0600, "HEMI - Powered"
>>><none@none.giganews> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Not hardly, but whatever it is, it is FAR, FAR, FAR ahead of yours!
>>>>YOUR country gutted the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force and so
>>>>drastically cut back on the Army and Marines that you no longer
>>>>have a strategic military force, Period.
>>
>>
>>We have an extremely good military designed for 21 century conflicts.
>>Come over to uk.current-events.terrorisum where we can discuss it.
>>
>
>Clearly there is no national elitism going on in that little corner of
>cyberspace.....
Not at all there are many nationalities there. The group was set up many
years ago to discuss the (US supported) PIRA terrorism over the last 50
years but broadened into terrorism in general.
>>> I suspect if that were a U.S. Navy
>>>ship captured in international waters, then the Iranian Navy would
>>>have ceased to exist.
>>
>>The UK had to stop the US doing that and thereby loosing all the US
>>military. You clearly have no idea of the game being played out in that
>>incident
>
>And you do?
Yes. It was an internal power struggle in Iran . The date was the
obvious give away there. Fortunately the Brits realised the game and
played it accordingly. We even had to stop the US screwing it up.
Had the US reacted as they wanted to and the one Iranian group expected
it would have started and Iran US war. This would have needed at least
500,000 more US ground troops and changed the political map.
China and Russian work with Iran. The rest of the co-alition would have
bugged out of Iraq and Afghanistan and the US would have had a battle
field from Syria to India.
The US did not have the resources for that and it would have collapsed
in a mess. The US could not have gone nuclear as the French, Chinese,
and Russians + others would have told the US if it even started NBC
warfare the rest of the world would take out the US. Just as the Chinese
threatened over Mac and Mae...
>Why, because you consider yourself an expert in CT over
>in a chatroom?
The chat was at
http://www.counterterrorexpo.com/
which I get to attend and some times speak at. Apart from that I am
still in contact with people doing CT work like I used to do
> If you have some facts, then please share them.
They are public domain now and the fact you don't have them means you
don't really have a clue nor do you have any connections to reality.
This is like some one saying Prove what happened ion 9/11 I didn't hear
about it.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: background
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c5aad211e6b58077?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:15 am
From: "Celcius"
"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009011810364137709-savageduck@savagenet...
> On 2009-01-18 10:22:38 -0800, "Celcius" <celcius38@hotmail.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
>> news:2009011809073527544-savageduck@savagenet...
>>> On 2009-01-18 04:27:13 -0800, "Celcius" <celcius38@hotmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:9os4n49dua0n1p4r589cm69ovps0dk30pk@4ax.com...
>>>>> To those who Photoshop...
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you do about background when it distracts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Using http://tonycooper.fileave.com/pete.jpg as an example, I can do a
>>>>> layer mask and apply a heavy Gaussian blur to the background, or I can
>>>>> drop it out and replace it. This was taken inside a building, and a
>>>>> quick snap of a guy that did something for me and wanted his picture
>>>>> taken.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've got a stock series of images I've taken of various things that
>>>>> can be used for backgrounds...brick walls, stucco walls, sky, outdoor
>>>>> scenes, etc. I can put Pete up in front of something that wasn't
>>>>> there, but I'm wondering what others here do.
>>>>>
>>>>> This one would mask easily because there's no hair tendrils floating
>>>>> around or fuzzy edges, but I thought I might do something a bit
>>>>> different.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do others do?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Tony!
>>>> I downloaded your photo, brought it into Photoshop CS3, selected the
>>>> background with the "Quick selection tool", clicked on "Filter",
>>>> "Gaussian blur" at 6,1 Pixel. That's it. I could have blurred it more
>>>> or even less, but it might not look natural. Had this been shot with a
>>>> 24-105mm Canon f/4 L IS, the background would be slightly out of focus.
>>>> Marcel
>>>
>>> Using CS4 I made a similar edit using the Quick Select Tool. However I
>>> chose to use the Lens Blur Filter. Then I went to "select" + "Refine
>>> Edges" + "Feather". That seems to be a Down & Dirty quick fix which
>>> should be easy to modify and refine, for this and other files you have
>>> in mind.
>>> http://snipr.com/aakd9-lntlf9
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Hi Savageduck!
>> I like your correction better than mine, especially around the hat. Mine
>> has a bit of a reddish line ;-(
>> Marcel
>
> Thanks.
> I found there was more flexibility using the lens blur filter. Also
> feathering the edges makes the transition around the hat less of a
> problem.
> I was not going to mess with any of the color/white balance issues as that
> was not what Tony's post was about.
> ...it was all fun trying.
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
***********************
I did feather next to nothing. owever, I still got this line around the hat.
Any suggestion?
Marcel
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 4:22 am
From: "Celcius"
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:%rTcl.14019$YU2.3422@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Celcius wrote:
>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:9os4n49dua0n1p4r589cm69ovps0dk30pk@4ax.com...
>>>> To those who Photoshop...
>>>>
>>>> What do you do about background when it distracts?
>>>>
>>>> Using http://tonycooper.fileave.com/pete.jpg as an example, I can do a
>>>> layer mask and apply a heavy Gaussian blur to the background, or I can
>>>> drop it out and replace it. This was taken inside a building, and a
>>>> quick snap of a guy that did something for me and wanted his picture
>>>> taken.
>>>>
>>>> I've got a stock series of images I've taken of various things that
>>>> can be used for backgrounds...brick walls, stucco walls, sky, outdoor
>>>> scenes, etc. I can put Pete up in front of something that wasn't
>>>> there, but I'm wondering what others here do.
>>>>
>>>> This one would mask easily because there's no hair tendrils floating
>>>> around or fuzzy edges, but I thought I might do something a bit
>>>> different.
>>>>
>>>> What do others do?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sorry, Tony... I forgot:
>>> http://celestart.com/images/publiques/blurred.jpg
>>
>> This one show a halo from the blur. Savageduck's didn't, I don't know why
>> but I've had to resort to cloning in spare background (subject cut &
>> pasted to a top layer) so the blur has something to blur behind the
>> subject. I might try faking in people-free building background where the
>> guy in the blue shirt is, maybe after the blur.
>
> Here's mine:
> http://edgehill.net/1/temp/pete.jpg
> I did as above and blurred, then used the smudge tool to remove halos &
> get rid of the blue-shirt guy. I used the eyedropper on a levels
> adjustment layer to do the WB picking on the gray shirt, different areas
> gave different results, some better than others.
>
> --
Paul,
I'm getting a blank page.
I'm interested because as you said in a previous post, "this one shows a
halo from the blur".
I don't know why, but I tried it many ways and it's still the same, even
with feathering reduced to zero.
Marcel
==============================================================================
TOPIC: GONE FISHIN' WITH THE FAB 5D2 !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7b5bd42536428df9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 5:26 am
From: "Focus"
"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5e88dbd7-dcfa-4c2e-94a8-98786e022dee@r13g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Despite chilling temperatures, it was crowded on the lake today.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297914/original
>
> The competition was fierce. It seemed like every time I spotted a
> good fish, someone else got there first.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297913/original
>
> You shoulda seen the feathers fly when this guy ran outta line.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297915/original
>
> Such a lovely day deserves at least one 3-shot 180-degree pano.
> (Tripods are for wimps!)
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297916/original
Too dark. You need a 5D mII for this?
--
Focus
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 7:50 am
From: Annika1980
On Jan 19, 8:26 am, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>
> Too dark. You need a 5D mII for this?
This link may help you.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/MONCAL/CALIBRATE.HTM
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Questions about scanning my negatives as my output looks greenish!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/278e0f77e8fd9bf3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 5:45 am
From: tmonego@wildblue.net
On Jan 18, 12:12 pm, Mel <mel.chris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have some questions about scanning my negatives as my output looks
> kind of greenish!
>
> I am using an old but still good Flatbed Linotype Hell scanner with
> backlight in conjunction with Vuescan for Macs to do the scanning but
> the output doesn't look as good as an original print of the negative.
>
> 1) Should I use one of those mini negative scanners (like the Vue
> point etc) instead of a flatbed? Do they do a better job?
>
> 2) I do not have a negative carrier (I am simply putting the negative
> on the flatbed). How does the negative carrier help and if I get one
> would the colours or the output be better?
>
> 3) Are there different settings I should use (I set the scanning
> software to transparency/color negative/sharpen photo/JPG output/no
> color enhancement/no fading restoration)?
>
> 4) Playing with the color balance make some small difference (e.g.
> switch from "white balance" to "landscape", etc.) but not much. Are
> there any tips on using color balance?
>
> 5) I am not sure if the negative is dirty. Would this contribute to
> the green color? If so how do I wash it?!
>
> 6) Do negatives fade or lose color!? My negatives have been in a dark
> closet for the last 8 years. If so is this the cause for the greenish
> look?
>
> Any help would be appreciated!
>
> Thanks
>
> Mel
You are getting a greenish tint because the scanner is not
compensating for the orange mask on the negs. Yes negatives can
degrade, most modern scanners will compensate for the mask, I am
surprised VueScan doesn't do this, is it an older version? Do you have
curves or a levels type adjustment, this could help, again I'm
surprised Vuescan doesn't supply these tools.
Those little duplicator devices are nothing more than a small sensor,
low mp camera with an inferior lens system, I real down and dirty way
of copying or scanning images. A macro lens on a digital camera would
be better, but still not correct for the orange mask.
If you want a scanner that will do the job, start with an Epson V700,
if that isn't good enough, go to the Nikon 35mm scanners.
Tom
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Stealth photography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bc18e971f8f9298d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 5:50 am
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:38:30 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <yeadndMuCJrg2-nUnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>, Neil Ellwood
><cral.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> writes
>>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:49:12 +0000, Chris H wrote:
>>
>>> In message <6ti58gFaka1kU2@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
>>> <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>>>mianileng <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And if your camera does get snatched, shout "Choor, choor" (choor =
>>>>> thief in Hindi, one of the very few words in my Hindi vocabulary :))
>>>>> and you'll have several citizens trying to catch the thief. :)
>>>>
>>>>Interesting! That suggests an origin for the British slang "chore" for
>>>>"steal".
>>>
>>> There are many "British" words Char == tea, bint == girl etc etc that
>>> come from India, middle east and Africa brought back by the military
>>> whilst they were " civilising" the rest of the world :-)
>>
>>But chore is a boring repetitive task.
>
>Yes.. It is not a crime or theft Time to search the dictionary... chore
>is NOT a British English word for steal
It's a slang term for "to steal" according to the Dictionary of Slang,
Jargon and Cant and Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and other sources.
Some sources give the origin as Hindi and some from the Romany word
"cor".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 6:14 am
From: Chris H
In message <3p09n41qspng4aba00hg7fof36pjutqk5v@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:38:30 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <yeadndMuCJrg2-nUnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>, Neil Ellwood
>><cral.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> writes
>>>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:49:12 +0000, Chris H wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <6ti58gFaka1kU2@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
>>>> <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>>>>mianileng <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And if your camera does get snatched, shout "Choor, choor" (choor =
>>>>>> thief in Hindi, one of the very few words in my Hindi vocabulary :))
>>>>>> and you'll have several citizens trying to catch the thief. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Interesting! That suggests an origin for the British slang "chore" for
>>>>>"steal".
>>>>
>>>> There are many "British" words Char == tea, bint == girl etc etc that
>>>> come from India, middle east and Africa brought back by the military
>>>> whilst they were " civilising" the rest of the world :-)
>>>
>>>But chore is a boring repetitive task.
>>
>>Yes.. It is not a crime or theft Time to search the dictionary... chore
>>is NOT a British English word for steal
>
>It's a slang term for "to steal" according to the Dictionary of Slang,
>Jargon and Cant and Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and other sources.
>Some sources give the origin as Hindi and some from the Romany word
>"cor".
Are those British dictionaries?
I have not heard the word used like before in the UK and neither have
my sons (early 20's) or my wife , a teacher who is "down with the kids"
:-)
Is there an on line link to your references? Not that I don't believe
you it is just that I am curious and would like to look it up. My Full
Oxford (the 21 volume version with Etymology) does not have it listed
in that context.
I found
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/c.htm
Which says ad you have found it is Romany so it would probably not be
in common English usage. However it would be the link from the
Romany's to the Hindus but appears, from the Oxford Dictionaries
Etymology to have nothing to do with the common English chore as in "to
do work".
Though I did find http://www.slangsite.com/slang/C.html
chore: Chat room whore.
Example: I'm typing naked, said the chore.
OR I'd have sex with you, but I hate to do chores.
Don't you just love the Internet you chores :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon S50 power supply
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/46a74eaf544db90f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 7:02 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"CHRIS KIDD" <c.kidd@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:Ljqcl.2660$P%3.986@newsfe21.ams2...
> However, the camera battery supplies, supposedly, 7.4V. In fact, if you
> test it, it is nearer 8.4V. If I connect 5x1.5V batteries (i.e. ~7.5-7.7V)
> the monitor will come on with whatever the camera is pointing at, but if
> you try to take a picture, it says to change the batteries. It would seem
> that the supply voltage is >7.4V... - this is a pain since most commerical
> power supplies are in multiples of 1.5V and 9V is probably too great!
>
> Suggestions?
>
> One other issue is whether I need to worry about the Li-ion thermister
> connector for the camera - presumably if you don't have the Li-ion battery
> it should not be critical (unless the camera senses the
> voltage/current...).
I NiCd rechargable (9V) battery is 8.4V
As you say most batteries are 1.5V but NiCd are 1.2V each
and have low internal resistance.
Be careful of using plug-in power supplies their voltage is usually
higher than the labelled voltage and they could have a high ripple current.
especially the cheaper ones.
Another method would be if you had to use 1.5V cells you can 'drop'
some voltage by using standard diodes (1N4002) each diode used in series
will
drop the voltage by about 0.7V
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why No Bulb or Cable Release Socket?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5a88867cb78e6f36?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 7:21 am
From: Matt Ion
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Jim <jj.n@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> By the way, the fine manual for the D90 says that you can leave the camera
>> at bulb for up to 35 minutes.
>
> Exactly!
>
> Try keeping a pneumatic bulb squeezed for 35 mins. And once you've
> developed the muscular strength to do that, try and find someone who
> makes camera pneumatic releases which can hold air pressure for 36
> mins :-)
I always just used a cable release with a little lucking thumbscrew...
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 19 2009 7:29 am
From: Matt Ion
J. Clarke wrote:
> I agree that the electrical release has many advantages, but I do wish
> that the camera manufacturers would come up with a standard interface
> for the thing.
>
> Nonetheless a cable release should cost pretty much nothing to
> add--it's just a screw thread on the shutter release that allows the
> pin on the cable release to press down on the underlying mechanism.
>
> I suspect that the real reason that the cable release was removed and
> replaced with an electrical release is that nobody was willing to pay
> 45 bucks for a cable release with a "Nikon" or "Canon" sticker on it
> when a perfectly adequate one could be obtained for 5 bucks as a
> generic. But if the connector is proprietary then they can force
> anyone needing a remote to pay 45 bucks for a switch and a wire that
> if not for the proprietary connector could be cobbled up from Rat
> Shack parts for that same 5 bucks.
Everyone's overlooking the obvious here: electronic releases are needed
with the advent of autofocus and the standard half-press-to-focus,
full-press-to-shoot operation. It would be hard to get that "touch"
with a cable release, and would be damn near impossible with a bulb.
It's nothing to do with digital vs. film, and not entirely to do with
money (although it would be nice if everyone could standardize on their
connectors and electronic-release designs).
==============================================================================
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
