BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:;benimgrafiklerim
FN:benimgrafiklerim
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:hacergurcan@gmail.com
REV:20090201T205044Z
END:VCARD
|
BEGIN:VCARD Welcome new memners-Hosgeldiniz yeni üyelerimiz
VERSION:2.1
N:;benimgrafiklerim
FN:benimgrafiklerim
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:hacergurcan@gmail.com
REV:20090201T200218Z
END:VCARD
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Bizim "Hayaldunyamiz"
Mail gönderme adresimiz:hayaldunyamiz@googlegroups.com
Üye olma adresimiz:hayaldunyamiz-subscribe@googlegroups.com
Üyeliğinizi sonlandırma adresimiz:
hayaldunyamiz-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
| ||||||
| | ||||||
|
http://groups.google.com/group/Cartoon-PSP * http://groups.google.com/group/Disney-Tubes * http://groups.google.com/group/PSP-Snags-Adult * http://I-Love-Tutorials.com/chat * http://I-Love-PSP.com * http://PSP.I-Love-Disney.com * http://I-Love-Cartoons.com * http://I-Love-Disney.com * http://KTimothy.com * http://Disney-Stationary.com * http://Disney-Kingdom.com * http://Disney-Clipart.com
This is a private email and is covered by TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 47, Sec. 1030 and Internet Privacy Law. Sharing done, within this group, is for personal use only - NOT FOR PROFIT
NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS INTENDED.
Group owner is not responsible for the sends/opinions of its members
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
adobe.photoshop.windows
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows?hl=en
adobe.photoshop.windows@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Arrange Documents Menu problem - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/d1cf7d5d3cdf39a6?hl=en
* PS-CS4 How do I make type that reverses as it travels over background? - 9
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/b7410544b35a338e?hl=en
* create multi-page PDF with photoshop CS3 - 9 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/2870c68b5a840c94?hl=en
* Few questions about Photoshop CS4 Student Edition - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/9f03a24a1ad2fdbe?hl=en
* Photomerge confusion. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/891b9d55c3bbaee5?hl=en
* Photoshop CS3 stopped responding - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/ba2c9489d4178c39?hl=en
* Adjustments made in CS2 not saved. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/d8e9fcb223db33d6?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Arrange Documents Menu problem
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/d1cf7d5d3cdf39a6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:52 am
From: Rob_Keijzer@adobeforums.com
I just isolated Imagenomic's Portraiture 2 to also give that problem.
Rob
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 11:07 am
From: Rob_Keijzer@adobeforums.com
I just isolated Imagenomic's Portraiture 2 to also give that problem.
I wrote to Imagenomic about this and 12 minutes later their reply said they're working on it.
In the meantime there is a workaround: Open and close Imagenomic Plug-in Console from File > Automate > Imagenomic plug-ijn Console.
This is only sticky within a PS session (so not between them).
Rob
==============================================================================
TOPIC: PS-CS4 How do I make type that reverses as it travels over background?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/b7410544b35a338e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:58 am
From: Evelyn_Cooper@adobeforums.com
On the way. Meanwhile I'll keep messing with it. Thx.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 10:11 am
From: "Phos±four dots"
Got it. Fixed it. Sent it back.
For the benefit of others following along here:
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1aECkTbZDleponyNvpHyL6iJXg1m0>The main problem Evelyn was having was that the silhouette I told her to CTRL + Click, in order to make a selection, was on a solid layer. The black silhouette was good, but the rest of that layer was white.
I made a copy of her "Layer 1" with the silhouette.
I ran the free "Peel Off White" filter by BergDesign (For Mac) to clear out all the white in the rest of the layer. Then, the CTRL + Click operation on that layer selected the black silhouette only, making it ready to use as a mask in the "Invert" Adjustment Layer.
Then I created a layer below the now-transparent silhouette and filled it with white.
Read more about "Peel Off White" and a similar free filter for Windows at the following link:
<http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3bc34571>
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 10:21 am
From: Evelyn_Cooper@adobeforums.com
So my black silhouette needed to be on a transparent layer?
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 10:29 am
From: "Phos±four dots"
Your silhouette doesn't have to be on a separate layer, but making it so made it easy to create the CTRL + Click selection of it. There are other ways you could have done that, but for my workflow, I really like to have elements of a design segregated onto their own layers for easiest and most versatile manipulation.
Layer Properties--->Color...
Just for fun, drop that menu and make a choice--any choice. Then look at your Layers Palette.
Ain't that cool!?
:)
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 10:50 am
From: Evelyn_Cooper@adobeforums.com
What does it mean that when I went to "layers properties," it said "none," but the background was still white? How would I get my silhouette on a transparent background without having to remove the white background? IOW why was the background white even though the layers properties said the background was none.
I'm guessing that the problem I was having was due to the fact that when I thought I was selecting only the silhouette, I was in fact selecting the silhouette PLUS its background.
This brings me to another source of confusion, i.e., the fact that you can select the whole layer OR objects on the layer, and it's not obvious (at least not to me) when you're doing which. You can have something selected but no marching ants are showing.
I changed the layers properties as you suggested above to a color, but there was no change in the document window. In the layers palette/panel, the color showed up in the tiny window where the eyeball is. Where is the cool part?
Still coming down from my extremely high frustration level of yesterday and earlier today. Not ready to be friends with Photoshop yet. <Ev pouts>
You, however, have been extremely helpful!! :-)
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 10:55 am
From: "Phos±four dots"
That drop down menu you see in the Layers Properties dialogue has nothing to do with the contents of the document's layer.
Again...choose something other than "None" from that menu. Look at your Layers Palette.
The riddle for the day (and you'll smile when you figure it out) is: What changes when you choose something other than "None?"
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 11:08 am
From: "Phos±four dots"
"This brings me to another source of confusion, i.e., the fact that you
can select the whole layer OR objects on the layer, and it's not obvious
(at least not to me) when you're doing which. You can have something selected
but no marching ants are showing."
When you CTRL + Click on a layer's icon, you're making a selection of all the pixels on that layer that are 51-100% opaque. Any pixels that are less than 50% opaque will appear OUTSIDE of the "marching ants" selection line.
You can also make selections via masks, and this is one of Photoshop's most powerful tools/functions. When you think about it, the most important part of doing edits and adjustments on selected areas of an image is being able to make as accurate a selection as possible.
There are dozens of ways to make selections, and the method or combination of methods you use depends on the nature of the object you want to isolate from its surroundings. The more techniques you know how to apply, the better able you'll be to just look at an image and assess what techniques will most efficiently isolate an object.
Got a little treasure trove that covers that huge subject as well. Strap in tight and put your helmet on...you're about to get hammered with a monster sledge of info:
<http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bb80e5d>
:)
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 11:08 am
From: Evelyn_Cooper@adobeforums.com
"That drop down menu you see in the Layers Properties dialogue has nothing to do with the contents of the document's layer."
<sigh> Now why would I think that drop down menu that is labeled " layer properties" would have anything to do with "layer properties"? Rhetorical question.
As I said, when I selected the silhouette layer, then opened the "layers property" drop down menu, and chose "green," a green highlight appears around the eyeball. Should something else be happening?
Also, how would I have created my silhouette on a transparent background? As you can see from the file I sent you, I had a photo, and I traced the figure and then filled it with black. At what point in the process did I have the option to create a transparent background?
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 11:18 am
From: "Phos±four dots"
"As I said, when I selected the silhouette layer, then opened the "layers
property" drop down menu, and chose "green," a green highlight appears
around the eyeball. Should something else be happening?"
<Reiteration>That color change is a visual tool for us to use as a way of organizing and differentiating layers and layer groups. </Reiteration>
"...I had a photo, and I traced the figure and then filled it with black.
At what point in the process did I have the option to create a transparent
background?"
I have to assume you knew to trace the figure on a new layer (which will be transparent), right?. Once you've made your shape (either by Pen Tool or by Lasso, or whatever), and you fill it on that new layer, everything you don't fill will remain transparent. Somewhere along the line, you had to have merged your silhouette layer with either a white-filled layer (like the one I created in your PSD) or you flattened it to the Background and then copied that into another document.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: create multi-page PDF with photoshop CS3
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/2870c68b5a840c94?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 9:10 am
From: stuart_smitheringale@adobeforums.com
Hi,
I have created 8 A4-sized PSD documents in Photoshop CS3 and I would like to create a single PDF document with 8 pages.
Is there an easy way to do this?
I would really appreciate any help that people can offer, as I am stumped!
Thank you in advance,
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 9:43 am
From: stuart_smitheringale@adobeforums.com
hi, sorry to press this one,
does anyone have any suggestions?
Thank you! :)
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 9:52 am
From: "John Joslin"
As far as I know it can't be done. What other applications do you have?
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 10:04 am
From: Bob Levine
Isn't there a PDF presentation script in CS3?
Bob
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 10:30 am
From: stuart_smitheringale@adobeforums.com
thanks John and Robert,
I don't have any other PDF-creation applications, however, on the help tool for CS3 Photoshop, there is mention of being able to create multi-page PDFs in photoshop. Unfortunately, it doesn't elaborate much on this.
I'll have a look around in PS some more and see what can be done.
In the meantime, if anyone can shed any light on this, I would appreciate it greatly : )
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 10:33 am
From: Paul_R@adobeforums.com
As Robert pointed out, File - Automate - PDF Presentation
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 10:39 am
From: KatWoman@adobeforums.com
FILE> Automate PDF presentation
add open files or point it to your folder of files
after you hit save will be a dialog box to choose options
make sure to make the proper selections for quality, based on your purpose
a PDF made for commercial printing will be large
If you want to put it on internet or email you need to select the setttings
for web based doc
OR you could open acrobat and create a multipage document
I think the default is 8.5x11
(not sure) but if you have unusual size paper
make sure to change the page layout to that
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 10:40 am
From: stuart_smitheringale@adobeforums.com
Paul, Robert et al
You're all geniuses/geniuii (??)
If I had the power to make it official, I would hold a ceremony of some sort!
Cheers,
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 11:12 am
From: Geoff_K_Jackson@adobeforums.com
Has FILE> Automate PDF presentation been taken out of PS CS4? I've just noticed it's not there!
Geoff.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Few questions about Photoshop CS4 Student Edition
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/9f03a24a1ad2fdbe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 9:22 am
From: David_A._Russell@adobeforums.com
the Macrovision stuff that installs a background service (called something
like 'Adobe LM monitor') on your computer?
that's the one.
Aaah. Well in that case I'll pass. I'll make do with Gimp, Paint.net, and CorelDraw X4 (the latter I also got from Amazon Vine). To be honest it would take a great deal to convince me to install spyware-like DRM on my system, and Photoshop just doesn't offer enough over Lightroom + other software to overcome that.
I'm not sure about UK rules but in the US the student edition is highly
restricted...no commercial use and I don't even know if it can be upgraded.
The UK version is the same. However as there's no prospect of me ever using it for commercial purposes it wouldn't have been a big deal
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 9:44 am
From: dave_milbut@adobeforums.com
, and Photoshop just doesn't offer enough over Lightroom + other software
to overcome that.
then you just don't know enough about photoshop.
To be honest it would take a great deal to convince me to install spyware-like
DRM on my system,
hmmm how about A PAYING JOB! :) i think that's what the clincher is for most folks. ;)
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 10:17 am
From: David_A._Russell@adobeforums.com
then you just don't know enough about photoshop.
Actually, if you had read the initial post you'd realise that I'm fully aware that Photoshop is hugely powerful. However it doesn't offer enough benefit for my usage (ie retouching of amateur photos) to make it worth the money + computer infection. My above post wasn't an attempt to say that Photoshop is bad, or that Gimp or any of these other freeware programs are even in the same league, I was just stating that my own need for Photoshop's power isn't great enough to make me want to install spyware.
hmmm how about A PAYING JOB! i think that's what the clincher is for most
folks.
True, but (again, as I explained above) I'm not a professional photographer/graphic artist/etc. and therefore there is no 'need it for work' motivation.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photomerge confusion.
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/891b9d55c3bbaee5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 9:49 am
From: Marc_Stokes@adobeforums.com
Hi, i did search but failed to find any real answers.
When i run a Photomerge (using jpegs) i have even tried using the sample jpegs that come with the software of the SF skyline.
I select my images, and it runs the usual sequence of starting the layers and merging then when it ends its just dissappears looking like the software has just opend with nothing happening.
Ive tried every combination to make them work and nothing.
I am using CS4 btw, and ive also tried in CS3 again which is still installed on my partition. and its not working in that either. it used to work with no problems bit not now.
any ideas?
vista32 - 2gig ram - core2duo processor.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photoshop CS3 stopped responding
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/ba2c9489d4178c39?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 11:10 am
From: Malcolm_Gibbon@adobeforums.com
Unfortunately there isn't one for Windows Vista
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adjustments made in CS2 not saved.
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/d8e9fcb223db33d6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 11:18 am
From: Califlefty@adobeforums.com
Anyone able to help?
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobe.photoshop.windows"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adobe.photoshop.windows+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Hugely disappointed in my efforts to understand this; oh well, onwards and upwards to the next one.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Bizim "Hayaldunyamiz"
Mail gönderme adresimiz:hayaldunyamiz@googlegroups.com
Üye olma adresimiz:hayaldunyamiz-subscribe@googlegroups.com
Üyeliğinizi sonlandırma adresimiz:
hayaldunyamiz-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
NİSANCI |
| ||||||
| I just finished testing this one for Auds, hope you like it and it is a wonderful tutorial when released. Barry | ||||||
|
hello all,
I have the word ONE to which I have applied Blending Options to make it
look like glass text and have saved it. Now I need to do the same for
the words TWO, THREE up to TWENTY.
My question is, rather that having to apply all the blending options to
each word in turn is it possible to just delete the word ONE and type
in TWO then delete TWO and type in the word THREE etc and still have
all the blending options already applied.
I hope that this makes sense to you.
If it is possible could you please explain how to a novice.
Using CS3.
T.I.A.,
George.
------------------------------------
Please check out our sister group, attachments allowed-Photoshop by Example http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ps-by-ex/ =========Members Map http://www.frappr.com/photoshopbeginners ========
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/photoshop-beginners/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/photoshop-beginners/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:photoshop-beginners-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:photoshop-beginners-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
photoshop-beginners-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
http://groups.google.com/group/Cartoon-PSP * http://groups.google.com/group/Disney-Tubes * http://groups.google.com/group/PSP-Snags-Adult * http://I-Love-Tutorials.com/chat * http://I-Love-PSP.com * http://PSP.I-Love-Disney.com * http://I-Love-Cartoons.com * http://I-Love-Disney.com * http://KTimothy.com * http://Disney-Stationary.com * http://Disney-Kingdom.com * http://Disney-Clipart.com
This is a private email and is covered by TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 47, Sec. 1030 and Internet Privacy Law. Sharing done, within this group, is for personal use only - NOT FOR PROFIT
NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS INTENDED.
Group owner is not responsible for the sends/opinions of its members
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
http://groups.google.com/group/Cartoon-PSP * http://groups.google.com/group/Disney-Tubes * http://groups.google.com/group/PSP-Snags-Adult * http://I-Love-Tutorials.com/chat * http://I-Love-PSP.com * http://PSP.I-Love-Disney.com * http://I-Love-Cartoons.com * http://I-Love-Disney.com * http://KTimothy.com * http://Disney-Stationary.com * http://Disney-Kingdom.com * http://Disney-Clipart.com
This is a private email and is covered by TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 47, Sec. 1030 and Internet Privacy Law. Sharing done, within this group, is for personal use only - NOT FOR PROFIT
NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS INTENDED.
Group owner is not responsible for the sends/opinions of its members
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I Love You
If you would like this tag personalized, you may send requests here appleannie@tampabay.rr.com
I have listed my Rules below please follow them. Thank you!
Enjoy! Huggs Annie
My Rules
When requesting my tags please put the name of the tag in the subject line and the name(s) you would like on it in list form, then any other comments in the message body.
NO more than 5
Please pick up your tag asap, due to limited space I will have to delete any tags left in order to load new offers.
After I have closed the offer , Please do not request.
And most importantly
ENJOY!!
http://appleannie.yuku.com/forums/66
__._,_.___| | ||
| |
http://groups.google.com/group/Cartoon-PSP * http://groups.google.com/group/Disney-Tubes * http://groups.google.com/group/PSP-Snags-Adult * http://I-Love-Tutorials.com/chat * http://I-Love-PSP.com * http://PSP.I-Love-Disney.com * http://I-Love-Cartoons.com * http://I-Love-Disney.com * http://KTimothy.com * http://Disney-Stationary.com * http://Disney-Kingdom.com * http://Disney-Clipart.com
This is a private email and is covered by TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 47, Sec. 1030 and Internet Privacy Law. Sharing done, within this group, is for personal use only - NOT FOR PROFIT
NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS INTENDED.
Group owner is not responsible for the sends/opinions of its members
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
adobe.photoshop.windows
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows?hl=en
adobe.photoshop.windows@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Why doesn't an inch in Photoshop equal an inch on the printer? - 2 messages,
2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/db50a7b5cf3ef344?hl=en
* Having used Distort crashes CS4 when trying to open additional files - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/dcca0fd9a04f34ce?hl=en
* Arrange Documents Menu problem - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/d1cf7d5d3cdf39a6?hl=en
* CS3 TWritingDirection error.. pleaaaase heellllllllllppppp - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/715b4a68de97b615?hl=en
* CS4 to CS4 extended - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/35370d747d902eaa?hl=en
* Crop Tool Gone Buggy CS2 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/98e1880bf2cd8e80?hl=en
* Few questions about Photoshop CS4 Student Edition - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/9f03a24a1ad2fdbe?hl=en
* Photoshop CS3 stopped responding - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/ba2c9489d4178c39?hl=en
* CS4 OpenGL stops working after a few minutes of painting - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/275211aa24bfc133?hl=en
* PS-CS4 How do I make type that reverses as it travels over background? - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/b7410544b35a338e?hl=en
* Insert special character in PS CS4 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/b60d9b31dfcbc0b5?hl=en
* Message disappeared - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/2e41fe01e1b2357d?hl=en
* Photoshop CS3 won't launch, but shows up in Processes - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/ad338d91449c8b8a?hl=en
* new member - old user ? about CS3 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/6826106001fea5db?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why doesn't an inch in Photoshop equal an inch on the printer?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/db50a7b5cf3ef344?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 4:29 am
From: Geoff_K_Jackson@adobeforums.com
When you click on Print and the PS print dialog box appears, is there a tick in the box next to "Scale to fit media"? If so, take it off. This is all I can think of that may be causing your problem. I have 2 Epson printers and both will print at the correct size.
Geoff.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 5:59 am
From: Dennis_S@adobeforums.com
I don't have an Epson printer but if your print driver has any options like "borderless printing", "minimize margins", or anything that sounds like that, try turning those options off. These types of options make the print driver expand the image slightly for printing. Unless you have "Scale to fit media" selected as Geoff mentioned, I think it is a printer driver issue.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Having used Distort crashes CS4 when trying to open additional files
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/dcca0fd9a04f34ce?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 4:50 am
From: Geoff_K_Jackson@adobeforums.com
Melody, have you tried opening your raw files from Bridge instead of Lightroom? This could show if the fault is with Lightroom or PS.
Also, what happens if, after applying the twirl, you save the file as a psd before opening another raw file?
Geoff.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Arrange Documents Menu problem
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/d1cf7d5d3cdf39a6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 5:51 am
From: Dennis_Hallinan@adobeforums.com
Never mind...found it...NIK filters. :-(
Dennis
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:52 am
From: Rob_Keijzer@adobeforums.com
I just isolated Imagenomic's Portraiture 2 to also give that problem.
Rob
==============================================================================
TOPIC: CS3 TWritingDirection error.. pleaaaase heellllllllllppppp
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/715b4a68de97b615?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 5:57 am
From: Rob_Keijzer@adobeforums.com
Try to reinstall with Antivirus/internet security software temporarily disabled.
Rob
==============================================================================
TOPIC: CS4 to CS4 extended
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/35370d747d902eaa?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 6:05 am
From: Bob Levine
And then download the demo and give it test drive.
Bob
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 6:27 am
From: Mark_Struthers@adobeforums.com
Hi All,
Not quite as simple as that. I know I WANT the Extended version but at present I don't think I will take advantage of the extra features. However, this doesn't mean that at a future point (next week, next month, next year - who knows) I won't want the extra features.
In these economic times, I can't justify the disparity in price at present, but this doesn't mean I won't change my mind later if circumstances improve.
Therefore, it seems Adobe won't let me change my mind later! I don't ask for discount, just the ability to pay the difference if circumstances dictate finances aren't so tight.
Cheers
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:36 am
From: dave_milbut@adobeforums.com
Therefore, it seems Adobe won't let me change my mind later! I don't ask
for discount, just the ability to pay the difference if circumstances
dictate finances aren't so tight.
I hear ya. like i said, call and ask to be sure, but we've had a couple people point out with version cs3 and now cs4, that basically adobe has told them you'd have to sell the standard version and buy a whole new copy of the extended version. sounds pretty ridiculous to me but that's their business.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Crop Tool Gone Buggy CS2
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/98e1880bf2cd8e80?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 6:11 am
From: "Phos±four dots"
Keep that "Reset Tool" trick in the back of your mind.
It's one of the first steps in troubleshooting. There's even an entry in the FAQ section here about it:
<http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.ef4a07f/1>
(Scroll down to the last reply, and make sure you also look at the attached image.)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Few questions about Photoshop CS4 Student Edition
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/9f03a24a1ad2fdbe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:01 am
From: David_A._Russell@adobeforums.com
I'm thinking of getting a DSLR camera in the summer, so (since I'm a geek) I want to make sure I've got all the software I'll need to edit the photos once I've taken them. The catch is that I graduate from university this year, so if I'm going to buy Photoshop (ie if I'm going to _afford_ Photoshop) I need to do so in the next couple of months to get the educational discount.
I've just got a few questions as to whether I actually need Photoshop CS4 for my situation:
* I already have Lightroom 2 (courtesy of Amazon Vine!) for processing RAW files, doing basic colour adjustment etc. Would I get £150 worth of extra usage from Photoshop CS4 compared to Lightroom?
* What DRM/copy protection does Photoshop CS4 use? Is it the same that's used in Lightroom 2 (hasn't given me any problems) or the Macrovision stuff that installs a background service (called something like 'Adobe LM monitor') on your computer?
* If I need to reactivate over the phone some time in the future (e.g. when I move to a new computer and I've already used the activations) do I still need to be a qualifying student?
Reckoned there wouldn't be a better place to ask these than PS forums :)
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:34 am
From: dave_milbut@adobeforums.com
Would I get £150 worth of extra usage from Photoshop CS4 compared to Lightroom?
depends on what you do, but does it contain £150 worth of more stuff? definitely. and even if you don't use it immediately. with it in hand, i'll wager you FIND uses for it moving foreward as you learn the program.
the Macrovision stuff that installs a background service (called something
like 'Adobe LM monitor') on your computer?
that's the one.
If I need to reactivate over the phone some time in the future (e.g. when
I move to a new computer and I've already used the activations) do I still
need to be a qualifying student?
no. just at time of purchase.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:36 am
From: Bob Levine
Let's just get something clear here...there's a student edition and an
academic version.
I'm not sure about UK rules but in the US the student edition is highly
restricted...no commercial use and I don't even know if it can be upgraded.
The academic version costs a bit more but allows commercial use and is
upgradable.
Bob
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photoshop CS3 stopped responding
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/ba2c9489d4178c39?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:45 am
From: Malcolm_Gibbon@adobeforums.com
John
I have always had 2 printers connected to my computer viz. a Canon I4500 and an Epson R1900. Photoshop recognizes both of them. However Photoshop has suddenly stopped responding to the print command for the Epson which is of course my Photoprinter and the one I primarily need to print photographs. I have just sucessfully made a print with the Canon but the minute I change the printer setting to Epson Photoshop locks out. What can possibly have happened to make Photoshop fall out with Epson?
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:15 am
From: "John Joslin"
Can't imagine. Is the Epson the default?
You could try making a generic printer the default.
Did the drivers get updated by any chance?
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:42 am
From: Malcolm_Gibbon@adobeforums.com
I have tried swapping the default printer - it makes no difference. I don't think it is the Epson printer driver that is the problem as the printer responds to commands from other software eg. Serif. It is only Photoshop that is giving me grief.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:45 am
From: dave_milbut@adobeforums.com
remove the printers from the system (uninstall) and install a default generic printer driver. john, what's that link again?
it does sound like a problem others have experienced with some printer drivers and cs3 lagging...
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:47 am
From: "John Joslin"
Generic printer driver:
<http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=pdrv&platform=win>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: CS4 OpenGL stops working after a few minutes of painting
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/275211aa24bfc133?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:49 am
From: Phil_Jaeger@adobeforums.com
Hi Roger,
Thanks for the info about nVidia's latest driver v181.22.
I installed it & was able to paint for 20-25 minutes before the gpu became disabled...a little better. I've been able to paint for 20 min before, but I think I had to disable physX or change some setting, so maybe the latest driver isn't really an improvement.
Well, hopefully Photoshop CS4 will be useable sometime this year.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: PS-CS4 How do I make type that reverses as it travels over background?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/b7410544b35a338e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:11 am
From: Evelyn_Cooper@adobeforums.com
Phos, a million thank yous for the detailed steps.
However... I've done and re-done them six times and there's some step I must be missing. What I wind up with, to use your example above (which is precisely the effect I'm wanting), is the silhouette with the white letters "cut into" the black figure, but no black letters outside the silhouette. It's the same effect I would have achieved if I had simply made all my text white. I've already screamed at the cat and the two dogs... they are all hiding now.
I'm trying to make my layers panel look like yours. Is my type still type or have I rasterized it before I create the Invert Adjustment layer? Clearly you have not rasterized your type, because the layer icon shows a big "T."
The topmost layer in the list on yours shows the silhouette of the figure... When I follow your instruction to create an Invert Adjustment layer above the text, what shows up in the new layer is the type selection bounding box, not my silhouette.
What am I missing?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:22 am
From: "Phos±four dots"
I'm probably the one who forgot to include an important step.
When you follow the step for making a selection (CTRL + Click) you need to do this on the icon in the Layer for your silhouette. It sounds to me like you CTRL + Clicked on your type layer, and made a selection out of the text.
If you want to, you can send me a ZIP-compressed copy of your Photoshop file, with all the layers intact just the way you have them now. I'll make the necessary changes and send it back. Then, you can study the differences between them.
phosphordigital [at] gmail [dot] com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Insert special character in PS CS4
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/b60d9b31dfcbc0b5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:31 am
From: "Ronald Keller"
If you need accented characters on a regular basis you might want to set your keyboard to US International. This makes accents 'dead keys'.
If such dead key is followed by a vowel you get á, ë, ç, Ú etc... very easily.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Message disappeared
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/2e41fe01e1b2357d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:39 am
From: dave_milbut@adobeforums.com
they still can... :)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photoshop CS3 won't launch, but shows up in Processes
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/ad338d91449c8b8a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:38 am
From: dave_milbut@adobeforums.com
whoa. an audio card driver messing with photoshop launching? like stan on south park says: this is pretty f$&*ked up right here.
that must be a seriously buggy driver, or its something else...
==============================================================================
TOPIC: new member - old user ? about CS3
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/t/6826106001fea5db?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:44 am
From: dave_milbut@adobeforums.com
what john said i'm looking at my cs3 upgrade now. there's a white sticker on the inner gray box like he describes (UPG), but there's also a silver UPGRADE sticker with some legal mumbo jumbo describing what an upgrade is on the colorful cardboard sleeve that goes around the gray box.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobe.photoshop.windows"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adobe.photoshop.windows+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.windows/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
| | |||||
|
http://groups.google.com/group/Cartoon-PSP * http://groups.google.com/group/Disney-Tubes * http://groups.google.com/group/PSP-Snags-Adult * http://I-Love-Tutorials.com/chat * http://I-Love-PSP.com * http://PSP.I-Love-Disney.com * http://I-Love-Cartoons.com * http://I-Love-Disney.com * http://KTimothy.com * http://Disney-Stationary.com * http://Disney-Kingdom.com * http://Disney-Clipart.com
This is a private email and is covered by TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 47, Sec. 1030 and Internet Privacy Law. Sharing done, within this group, is for personal use only - NOT FOR PROFIT
NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS INTENDED.
Group owner is not responsible for the sends/opinions of its members
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:AKONA;Sandy
FN:Sandy AKONA
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:konajill2@frontiernet.net
REV:20090201T164249Z
END:VCARD
rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Palestinians Under Attack - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/632cc84438e1b7bf?hl=en
* Palestinians Under Attack - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/785f7679e18aa82a?hl=en
* Palestinians Under Attack - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7fc71383c4ed520f?hl=en
* Top flight DSLRs in novice hands - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a405372c4093d0be?hl=en
* Help with my D90 please - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/78c07e5249379239?hl=en
* 8-Way Processing With Intel's New Superchip!! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2e50dafd5821524d?hl=en
* Adobe gone crazy? - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
* How do you create mood - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b42e56278cfae76f?hl=en
* Freeware alternative to Camtasia for capturing a video of whatever is on the
screen - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c93acde252e3d7e8?hl=en
* Nikon D90 and 18-200mm lens - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8eaf53f0456b671c?hl=en
* Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
* G10 memory battery internal? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/43d6d5f542774717?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/632cc84438e1b7bf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 3:27 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 01 Feb 2009 02:56:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 31 Jan 2009 20:52:04 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 30 Jan 2009 06:06:18 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 29 Jan 2009 06:58:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You don't understand subtle meanings, so you shout "lies!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I understand how evil sleazebags try to claim that black is white,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>freedom is death, and outright lies are really just "subtle meanings".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You have little understanding of the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I understand that you're a shameless liar. Proof is provided above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Not proof at all, Ray.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Here it is again, liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The West Bank [...] is just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>>>>>>>>> Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>>>>>>>> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>>>>>>>>> Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Again you ignore what I've said about that in your childish attempt at
>>>>>>>>"gotcha."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Did you say that the West Bank is part of Israel? Yes or no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The answer is both, dummy.
>>>>>
>>>>>And that makes you a liar.
>>>>
>>>>No,
>>>
>>>When somebody makes two statements that are mutually contradictory and
>>>claims that both of them are true, that people is insane or a liar.
>>
>>Ray, did you know that water is a liquid?
>
>Invalid analogy.
It's a perfectly valid analogy. Oh wait, how would you know, you
deleted most of it.
>
>>>> it makes you a fool
>>>
>>>I don't believe your lies, asshole.
>>
>>Your gay advances
>
>So, in addition to calling people anti-semites and terrorists and
>bigots, you also trot out the old "gay" accusation.
You just don't know when you are being mocked, do you? You are the
one with a rectal fixation in your choice of words. It's just
reasonable to assume that it must be on your mind a lot.
>>>>Surely you know that you can take ANYONE's words out of context
>>>
>>>Explain how the context makes your statement true.
>>
>>You deleted all of that
>
>You're a liar.
Yet you even lie with that statement. But how can you prove
otherwise since you've deleted all the evidence?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/785f7679e18aa82a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 3:30 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>>Stephen, one of the many euphemisms I HATE is "spin", which
>>today means to tell a story to be most favorable to your side
>>when in reality, it is really a LIE. Ray and some others attempt
>>to spin the truth to make it sound more believable and more
>>palitable to normal folk but succeed in neither.
>
> Exactly. In self-righteous anger they somehow believe that
> lying and personal attacks are justified because they *think*
> they have the moral high ground. In their limited worldview,
> they truly think that the end justifies the means. Lie, quote
> out of context, erase the words of others, avoid questions and
> repeatedly bring home the false accuation of "liar, liar."
> It's all so transparent. That's why I've called Ray a Nazi,
> because he uses their tactics against the opposition.
>
I just replied to you in another post that a strange side of being a
liberal is vigorous defense of freedom of expression EXCEPT when the
other person doesn't agree with the Liberal view of the world.
Then there's the strange circularity of political ideology where as
one moves Left, eventually you get to Socialism, Marxism, and
Communism but then the ideology wraps around and re-enters from the
far right as Facsism and back to the left again as reactionary,
neocon, and so on. I think the idea SHOULD be to stay somewhere just
left or just right of center and not get so sidetracked as to be
either a Far Left OR a Far Right Loon.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7fc71383c4ed520f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 3:31 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 01 Feb 2009 02:57:11 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 31 Jan 2009 20:55:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 31 Jan 2009 07:48:03 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 29 Jan 2009 07:06:40 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 28 Jan 2009 07:00:18 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 27 Jan 2009 03:40:05 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:24:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 25 Jan 2009 03:43:31 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:37:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 18:09:14 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 08:37:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:15:08 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then you need to get a life and learn to do independent research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have. Including going to the ME. My parents have travelled in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Israel and Palestine. Your experience is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like you were more on a sight seeing tour than a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>finding mission as your thesis is ludicrous at best.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My "experience" is precisely this: I think that ALL/ANY sovereign
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nations have the RIGHT to defend themselves against unwarranted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attacks without resorting to bullshit arbitration by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>international community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No you don't. You totally reject the Palestinian's right to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>anything of the sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Palestinians are NOT a sovereign nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How convenient doe you to make such an excuse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Excuse? That's simply a fact that cannot be disputed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And WHY aren't they a nation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because Israel doesn't allow it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Israel is still illegally expanding settlements in the West Bank and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>refuses to withdraw.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why is it illegal?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you think wikipedia is a reliable source, you are a fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Translation: Any source that isn't pro-Israel must be biased.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>But I notice no denial or refutaton from you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No translation needed. Virtually nobody considers Wikipedia to be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>trustworthy source.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
>>>>>>>>>>> Attacking the Person
>>>>>>>>>>> (argumentum ad hominem)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Definition:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument
>>>>>>>>>>> itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character,
>>>>>>>>>>> nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be
>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome.
>>>>>>>>>>> Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the
>>>>>>>>>>> company he keeps.
>>>>>>>>>>> There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument
>>>>>>>>>>> attacks the person who made the assertion.
>>>>>>>>>>> ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the
>>>>>>>>>>> author points to the relationship between the person making the
>>>>>>>>>>> assertion and the person's circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>> ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a
>>>>>>>>>>> person does not practise what he
>>>>>>>>>>> preaches.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They captured that land from Jordan during the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1967 Arab-Israeli war when they won that war of Arab aggression. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>have every right to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Just like the nazis had every right to Poland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Poland never started multiple wars against Germany for the purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>removing them from Europe, knucklehead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And until the Zionists started using terrorism to drive out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Palestinians, neither did the Arabs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Again, you are ignoring history,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Evidence? What "history" do you believe is being ignored?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You tell me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You make an accusation you can't even justify.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That makes you a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ray, you've already demonstrated that you view any source that
>>>>>>>>supports Israel's right to exist as propaganda.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And now you're lying your bigoted ass off again. You lie, you get
>>>>>>>challenged, you come up with some new lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's a sickness with you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Those aren't lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>You admitted that your statements are lies.
>>>>
>>>>Uhmm ... no.
>>>
>>>Of course you did.
>>
>>Never. You are the worst kind of liar, one who actually thinks he is
>
>Lessee, what is it that you say? Something about calling people liars
>as a way of deflecting from your own lies?
>
>Back at you, hypocrite.
Deleting most of my post and then using that as a springboard for more
insults?
Talk about being a lying hypcrite, Ray.
You just repeat a lie as a way of avoiding the questions I've asked
you.
Am I lying? Then prove it by not deleting text and by actually
answering questions.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Top flight DSLRs in novice hands
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a405372c4093d0be?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 3:34 am
From: "mianileng"
Robert Coe wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:56:50 -0600, Rich <none@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>> I often hear people (likely motivated more by envy than
>> anything
>> else) criticize novices who sport expensive DSLRs. I figure
>> it's
>> the same kind of people who dine on steak and feed their kids
>> hotdogs because "the kids can't appreciate the steak fully."
>> Friend is attending photo school. Guy shows up toting a new
>> D3...with a $150 Sigma zoom attached. Disgusting, I know.
>> Shows a
>> lack of something on that person's part. But ultimately, even
>> a
>> novice or a complete hack will do somewhat better with a
>> better
>> camera, it's inevitable. The person with the D300 coupled to a
>> 300mm
>> f2.8 is likely going to do a little better than the guy with
>> the old
>> D50 and the basic, slow 70-300mm G lens, if you were to
>> average the
>> results across a couple hundred shots.
>> So, the old question, is a $5000 camera in a novice's
>> hands(lets
>> assume a novice who is clueless and won't bother learning)a
>> complete
>> waste? No. Because even though they'll never exploit its full
>> potential, they will do slightly better with it than with a
>> lesser
>> machine.
>
> Every year I play the trumpet ("Taps", etc.) in our town's
> Memorial
> Day parade. In any year we have two to four people who do this.
> One
> year we had a college kid who couldn't understand why I (an old
> geezer who hardly ever practices) got a better sound than he
> did.
> After the parade we did a few unscientific tests that pretty
> well
> exposed the truth: while he was a better trumpet player, I had
> a
> better trumpet.
>
> It's fairly universal that for a given skill level of its user,
> better
> equipment produces better results.
>
And vice versa. For a given equipment, a skilled operator will
usually produce better results than someone less skilled. The two
are equally universal truths. It's when some people harp on just
one to the exclusion of the other that it becomes misleading. For
example, when someone makes an unqualified statement that no one
needs a DSLR because content trumps quality every time, or that a
P&S can never be good enough for someone with a half-serious
interest in photography.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Help with my D90 please
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/78c07e5249379239?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 3:35 am
From: Chris Malcolm
Robert Coe <bob@1776.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2009 07:08:06 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> : Samantha Booth <mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote:
> : >"Samantha Booth" <mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote in message
> :
> : >> Got my D90 yesterday and I am a complete novice so go easy on me :)
> : >>
> : >> It came with something that goes on the end of the lens. It screws on
> : >> the end and is like a zig zag shape, sorry dont know the name. However
> : >> when I take photos and review them this thing is visible in the shot
> : >> at the bottom. I cannot rotate it to make it invisible so what is it
> : >> for and why is it showing in my pictures.
> : >>
> : >> Can anyone help please?
> : >Lens hood I think and its sorted now, user error :)
> :
> : Just what I was going to tell you. :-)
> But why would a lens hood intended for a particular camera be visible in a
> photograph taken therewithal?
The clue is in the original claim, that it's "visible at the
bottom". That's what happens with a wide enough angle lens with a hood
on used with a pop-up flash. It's not the actual hood that's visible,
it's its shadow. That's one of the reasons the lens hood is made to be
detachable :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 6:43 am
From: Jürgen Exner
Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> : >"Samantha Booth" <mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote in message
>> : >> It came with something that goes on the end of the lens. It screws on
>> : >> the end and is like a zig zag shape, sorry dont know the name. However
>> : >> when I take photos and review them this thing is visible in the shot
>> : >> at the bottom. I cannot rotate it to make it invisible so what is it
>> : >> for and why is it showing in my pictures.
>
>The clue is in the original claim, that it's "visible at the
>bottom". That's what happens with a wide enough angle lens with a hood
>on used with a pop-up flash. It's not the actual hood that's visible,
>it's its shadow. That's one of the reasons the lens hood is made to be
>detachable :-)
I'm impressed, I think you nailed it. Your crystal ball is truly very
high quality :-).
The OP already said "user error" but as usually neglected to tell us the
solution to the riddle.
jue
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 8-Way Processing With Intel's New Superchip!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2e50dafd5821524d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 4:14 am
From: "Larry Thong"
^Tems^ wrote:
>> It looks like we are being forced to upgrade our computers once again
>> since we have upgraded our cameras. The new CPU is guaranteed to
>> outlast most other chips on the market by 10-years. Fortunately
>> Intel has been forced to throw away the old way of thinking, no more
>> planned obsolescence.
>>
>>
>> <http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2369/2273922550_9bc64f5845_b.jpg>
>
> Looking at the plugs it could be expandable to 10 ways in the future
> if needed
I wonder what happened there?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:47 am
From: Nervous Nick
On Jan 31, 7:21 pm, "Larry Thong" <larry_th...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> It looks like we are being forced to upgrade our computers once again since
> we have upgraded our cameras. The new CPU is guaranteed to outlast most
> other chips on the market by 10-years. Fortunately Intel has been forced to
> throw away the old way of thinking, no more planned obsolescence.
>
> <http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2369/2273922550_9bc64f5845_b.jpg>
OMG you posted a photo of a toilet in a diarrhea clinic
Cute
Clever
Funny
Oh, I forgot to add these:
!! !! !! !!
--
YOP...
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe gone crazy?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 5:00 am
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But a RAW converter should incorporate as much image editing as
> possible,
Why?
> so that no further image editing steps are needed after RAW
> conversion.
It's obvious that to you "RAW converter" means "RAW converter +
full blown image editor (like Photoshop)". It's just as obvious
that UFRAW is a RAW converter without any image editor bolted on.
It's really funny to see you claim things that UFRAW *must*
do or have. Imagine a camera set to only output RAW --- and
someone claiming that it's worthless, since it does output RAW
instead of JPEG, because RAW needs further image editing steps
where JPEG is already a final product.
The whole 'non-destructive editing' argument is a red herring as
it's got nothing at all to do with the choice between pure RAW
converter + separate image editor or do-everything-and-clean-the-
kitchen-too-RAW-converter.
-Wolfgang
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 5:31 am
From: nospam
In article <873aeyh6gv.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >combine the raw converter and image editor and not only is it all
> >available in one program, but it makes it much easier to do
> >non-destructive editing. you could revisit the raw converter at any
> >point to make a change, even *after* extensive retouching, compositing,
> >etc., without losing any of it.
>
> Except that a combination would still commonly be used
> by invoking it twice.
how so?
> > the issue then is why have it in two separate apps?
>
> Because it actually is not best done as a single entity.
> A raw converter should be a lightweight program which
> can be invoked quickly and cleanly with minimal
> confusion, to produce one or both of either a preview
> image or a image file that is used as the starting point
> for a production image.
an intermediate file effectively kills any possibility of
non-destructive editing.
> The ability to both rapidly run through a series of
> images in interactive mode, and to invoke the converter
> in batch mode, is essential.
which can be done either way.
> All of the above pretty much excludes implementation as
> an integral part of an image editor.
no it doesn't. photoshop, lightroom and aperture do all of that.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 6:01 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <873aeyh6gv.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> >combine the raw converter and image editor and not only is it all
>> >available in one program, but it makes it much easier to do
>> >non-destructive editing. you could revisit the raw converter at any
>> >point to make a change, even *after* extensive retouching, compositing,
>> >etc., without losing any of it.
>>
>> Except that a combination would still commonly be used
>> by invoking it twice.
>
>how so?
Once to generate previews. And once again when doing
production editing.
>> > the issue then is why have it in two separate apps?
>>
>> Because it actually is not best done as a single entity.
>> A raw converter should be a lightweight program which
>> can be invoked quickly and cleanly with minimal
>> confusion, to produce one or both of either a preview
>> image or a image file that is used as the starting point
>> for a production image.
>
>an intermediate file effectively kills any possibility of
>non-destructive editing.
No it doesn't. Regardless, "non-destructive editing" is
eye-candy that has very little real value.
>> The ability to both rapidly run through a series of
>> images in interactive mode, and to invoke the converter
>> in batch mode, is essential.
>
>which can be done either way.
>
>> All of the above pretty much excludes implementation as
>> an integral part of an image editor.
>
>no it doesn't. photoshop, lightroom and aperture do all of that.
Photoshop and Lightroom do not do all of that
independently any more than UFRAW and GIMP do. I didn't
bother to look up Aperture, and assume you don't know
any more about it than the others?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:44 am
From: nospam
In article <87tz7efe7m.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >an intermediate file effectively kills any possibility of
> >non-destructive editing.
>
> No it doesn't.
then explain how you can go back and make an adjustment to the raw
conversion after you make some changes in the editor, such as
retouching out a skin blemish or applying a lens distortion correction
filter, without losing any of those changes.
> Regardless, "non-destructive editing" is
> eye-candy that has very little real value.
it has a *lot* of value. i can't imagine working any other way. have
you actually tried it?
> >> The ability to both rapidly run through a series of
> >> images in interactive mode, and to invoke the converter
> >> in batch mode, is essential.
> >
> >which can be done either way.
> >
> >> All of the above pretty much excludes implementation as
> >> an integral part of an image editor.
> >
> >no it doesn't. photoshop, lightroom and aperture do all of that.
>
> Photoshop and Lightroom do not do all of that
> independently any more than UFRAW and GIMP do.
you said that you don't use camera raw which means you don't use
photoshop or lightroom. how is it that you know what they can or
cannot do?
it's possible to interactively batch edit, non-destructively edit and
generate intermediate files (not needed but still possible), which you
said can't be done if the raw converter is part of the app.
> I didn't
> bother to look up Aperture, and assume you don't know
> any more about it than the others?
you're quick to make (incorrect) assumptions.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:08 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> All of the above pretty much excludes implementation as
>> >> an integral part of an image editor.
>> >
>> >no it doesn't. photoshop, lightroom and aperture do all of that.
>>
>> Photoshop and Lightroom do not do all of that
>> independently any more than UFRAW and GIMP do.
>
>you said that you don't use camera raw which means you don't use
>photoshop or lightroom. how is it that you know what they can or
>cannot do?
Sigh. Go give google a whirl.
>it's possible to interactively batch edit,
A contradiction in terms.
>non-destructively edit and
>generate intermediate files (not needed but still possible), which you
>said can't be done if the raw converter is part of the app.
That is not what I said. Please learn to read and
please learn to use words with the meanings they have
for others.
>> I didn't
>> bother to look up Aperture, and assume you don't know
>> any more about it than the others?
>
>you're quick to make (incorrect) assumptions.
Photoshop does raw conversions absent a plugin?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How do you create mood
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b42e56278cfae76f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 5:46 am
From: "mianileng"
measekite wrote:
> I have seen many photographs (many in BW that was desaturated
> from
> color) that are very dark and moody. I do not know if they are
> intentionally underexposed or made that way in a photo editor.
> Many
> times mist and fog was added.
>
> Does anyone know how to do this?
As for converting color photos to B&W, I use Irfanview almost
exclusively. One can use either "Convert to grayscale" or
desaturating with "Color corrections" (Shift + G). Results
produced by the two methods look the same, but whereas the
greyscale picture is 8-bit (256 shades), the second one is still
technically 24-bit (16.7 million). The ratio of resultant file
sizes in uncompressed format is 1:3.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 5:56 am
From: "Alan Smithee"
"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:R49hl.11573$W06.7468@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>I have seen many photographs (many in BW that was desaturated from color)
> that are very dark and moody. I do not know if they are intentionally
> underexposed or made that way in a photo editor. Many times mist and fog
> was added.
>
> Does anyone know how to do this?
Do you mean like these?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cadm/3224186483/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loomax/3165940801/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/itsgreg/3049211090/
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:17 am
From: measekite
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:56:28 +0000, Alan Smithee wrote:
> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> news:R49hl.11573$W06.7468@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>I have seen many photographs (many in BW that was desaturated from color)
>> that are very dark and moody. I do not know if they are intentionally
>> underexposed or made that way in a photo editor. Many times mist and fog
>> was added.
>>
>> Does anyone know how to do this?
>
>
> Do you mean like these?
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/cadm/3224186483/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/loomax/3165940801/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/itsgreg/3049211090/
In that general direction but much sharper. The question was not so much
how to desaturate but to create mood. And I do know about some plug-ins
to create fog but not mist. But I want to know about how to expose for
this and what to do after.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Freeware alternative to Camtasia for capturing a video of whatever is
on the screen
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c93acde252e3d7e8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 6:43 am
From: Bill Wells
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 08:41:00 +0900, Johnw wrote:
>> One application this allows me is I can play music in the background, and
>> then scroll through my picture collection of a school event, and the whole
>> thing is automatically turned into a video that I can share or convert to
>> DVD for sharing. That's a neat idea.
>
> Sounds like you will be busy for a while, have fun.
Your recommended CamStudio seems fine for what I need.
It's much simpler to use than Wink, for example.
I just checked the option to record audio and then hit the record button.
When done, I hit the stop button and it automatically saves to an AVI.
I kind'a wish it would save to an AVI as it was recording so I wonder when
it will run out of memory, but that will take time to ascertain.
Once it's an AVI file, I can edit to my heart's content (not) and then
convert to DVD-video format with DVDFlick freeware and burn to DVD media
with ImgBurn freeware.
Thanks for the great suggestion. I'll try to summarize separately for
others to gain knowledge from our endeavor.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D90 and 18-200mm lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8eaf53f0456b671c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 6:57 am
From: TheRealSteve
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:03:19 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:37:47 +0000, Focus wrote:
>
>> "pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:gm2c45$eom$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with the D90?
>>> "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in advance.
>>> Elaborations will be welcome.
>>
>> I have given this lens some serious thought, but I decided on the 16-85
>> instead. Quality is more important to me than a long range. The 18-200 loses
>> by a landslide and costs more.
>> Both will work with the D90. Almost all Nikon lenses after 1990 will work
>> and even much older ones, some with restrictions.
>>
>>
>
>Based on everything I have read I would agree. You would also want to
>look at the Tokina 11-24? and the 70 to 200.
>
>Still, after you have all of those you may occasionally feel lazy and
>want to compromise and use an 18-200. But it would be luck to have that
>prize winning opportunity and not have the best lens with you to capture
>it.
There's always comprimises. What if that prize winning opportunity
would best be captured at 200mm but you had your 16-85 on?
Steve
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:12 am
From: measekite
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:57:08 +0000, TheRealSteve wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:03:19 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:37:47 +0000, Focus wrote:
>>
>>> "pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:gm2c45$eom$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with the D90?
>>>> "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in advance.
>>>> Elaborations will be welcome.
>>>
>>> I have given this lens some serious thought, but I decided on the 16-85
>>> instead. Quality is more important to me than a long range. The 18-200 loses
>>> by a landslide and costs more.
>>> Both will work with the D90. Almost all Nikon lenses after 1990 will work
>>> and even much older ones, some with restrictions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Based on everything I have read I would agree. You would also want to
>>look at the Tokina 11-24? and the 70 to 200.
>>
>>Still, after you have all of those you may occasionally feel lazy and
>>want to compromise and use an 18-200. But it would be luck to have that
>>prize winning opportunity and not have the best lens with you to capture
>>it.
>
> There's always comprimises. What if that prize winning opportunity
> would best be captured at 200mm but you had your 16-85 on?
>
> Steve
That depends if you want to shoot sports or nature etc. But if you should
mostly street and landscapes you will catch your shot with the 16-85 on an
APC sensor body (24-122) and you would have time to change lenses if you
feel you need to.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:40 am
From: TheRealSteve
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:12:24 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:57:08 +0000, TheRealSteve wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:03:19 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:37:47 +0000, Focus wrote:
>>>
>>>> "pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:gm2c45$eom$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>> Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with the D90?
>>>>> "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in advance.
>>>>> Elaborations will be welcome.
>>>>
>>>> I have given this lens some serious thought, but I decided on the 16-85
>>>> instead. Quality is more important to me than a long range. The 18-200 loses
>>>> by a landslide and costs more.
>>>> Both will work with the D90. Almost all Nikon lenses after 1990 will work
>>>> and even much older ones, some with restrictions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Based on everything I have read I would agree. You would also want to
>>>look at the Tokina 11-24? and the 70 to 200.
>>>
>>>Still, after you have all of those you may occasionally feel lazy and
>>>want to compromise and use an 18-200. But it would be luck to have that
>>>prize winning opportunity and not have the best lens with you to capture
>>>it.
>>
>> There's always comprimises. What if that prize winning opportunity
>> would best be captured at 200mm but you had your 16-85 on?
>>
>> Steve
>
>That depends if you want to shoot sports or nature etc. But if you should
>mostly street and landscapes you will catch your shot with the 16-85 on an
>APC sensor body (24-122) and you would have time to change lenses if you
>feel you need to.
Here you're rationalizing. If you shoot mostly street and landscapes
then the 16-85 is also the wrong lens for you. And you're not going
to get that "prize winning" opportunity shooting streets and
landscapes that have been shot a million times before by everyone else
with a digital camera.
We're discussing do-it-all walkaround travel lenses and having a
prize-winning opportunity happen upon you. You don't know what you'll
be shooting or what it is and it's certainly within the realm of
possibilities that this once in a lifetime shot will be captured much
better at 200mm than 85mm and that if you're fumbling around changing
lenses, you'll miss it.
BTW, since you seem to like Ken Rockwell (and I'll admit he does have
some valuable info on his site) you might be interested in what he has
to say about the 16-85 vs. 18-200.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm-vs-18-200mm.htm
The basic conclusion is that if you're shooting test charts and brick
walls or are going to print your shot at 20x30, the 16-85 would be
better. But for real world photography, it's not worth the extra cost
considering the loss of the long end.
For me, I was considering the 16-85 only because in certain situations
it has less CA than the 18-200. But that wasn't enough reason for me
to sell the 18-200 and get the 16-85. Espcially since CA is
correctable if you have that prize winning shot and newer bodies even
do it automatically.
Steve
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:50 am
From: Robert Coe
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:19:52 -0800, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
: "pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid> wrote:
: >Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with
: >the D90? "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in
: >advance. Elaborations will be welcome.
:
: See http://bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm which not only has a very
: detailed compatibility matrix for the what but also excellent
: explanation about the why.
:
: BTW: you could have found out easily yourself by looking into the manual
: or just following the standard route:
: The lens is at least AI-P (designed after ~1989), so it is fully
: compatible, unless the camera is a D40/40x/60 which would require an
: AF-S for auto-focus, but which lens even is.
The gibbericity of that answer fully justifies the original question.
Bob (recognizing another reason to be satisfied that his cameras are Canons)
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:32 am
From: "bmoag" <-aetoo@hotmail.com>
You might save some money and get equal or better optical performance from
the Sigma 18-200.
I have only me extensive personal experience with these lenses to go by, not
what I've read . . .
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:35 am
From: "Jim"
"pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid> wrote in message
news:gm2c45$eom$1@news.albasani.net...
> Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with the D90?
> "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in advance.
> Elaborations will be welcome.
>
Of course it will fit.
Jim
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:00 am
From: Robert Coe
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:06:35 -0800 (PST), blackmanblues@gmail.com wrote:
: On Jan 28, 5:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
: > This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
: > does work!!
: >
: > First - Download ACPCS4 Trial from Adobe
: >
: > [etc.]
: >
: > If Adobe used better protection you would not see this post!
: >
: > Note:
: > all you ubber honest guys should not read this post let alone try it!
: >
: > This is just information I do not advocte that you actually do this. I
: > recommend that you take the $700 out of your meagre paycheck and buy
: > the program. (Muahahahahahaha!)
: >
: > Robin Hood
:
: Well I'll be damned--it actually works!
How long do you goobers think it will take before Adobe fixes the trial
version to plug that leak?
Bob
==============================================================================
TOPIC: G10 memory battery internal?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/43d6d5f542774717?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:33 am
From: Sheila
Frank H wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:30:14 -0500, Sheila <swdalton@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Frank H wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:54:33 -0500, Sheila <swdalton@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are you just talking about the camera battery. If so, it is on the
>>>> bottom of the camera, there is a slot that you push to one side and the
>>>> battery is there with the card.
>>> No, Sheila,
>>>
>>> I am talking about the battery that holds the settings, as well as
>>> time and date.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Frank
>>
>> I've never heard of that kind of battery. There is probably memory that
>> holds this information. I've never had that kind of battery in any of
>> my digital cameras and I have a few. I also have a G10.
>
> Hi again Sheila,
>
> And thanks also to those who responded as well.
>
> I just downloaded the manual for the G10 from Canon.
>
> On the very top of page 15, it states:
> A rechargeable lithium battery is built into the camera to save such
> settings as Date/Time. It seems to charge itself off of the primary
> battery in about 4 hours.
> If you do not have your primary battery in the camera while not in
> use, this built in lithium battery will totally discharge within 3
> weeks, and you would have to re-do your settings.
>
> Now I still wonder how much Mr. Canon would charge to replace this
> secondary battery when the time comes, and it will.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Frank
>
>
Thank Frank for the information. I guess I will want to keep my battery
in my camera.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
==============================================================================
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
