rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Britain's horrific new photo law - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9a7f879f7bd7a51b?hl=en
* DPR's full D3x review - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b0c85f4ecb60c84b?hl=en
* Anyone have a Sandisk Extreme III card? - 10 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/53ddc24865f14241?hl=en
* Tiny old pancake lens in modern DSLR camera - What a contrast! - 2 messages,
2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a3efd7a0d81d3bfa?hl=en
* Creating a Time-Lapse Movie from Digital Stills - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f012e85cc55260b5?hl=en
* Silliest camera modes - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b02d8e9b56ef77ce?hl=en
* Help with specific picture - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555c4ff6162ca6f8?hl=en
* Beware of Rocky Cameras, UK + Paypal - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/422cde92582b6a98?hl=en
* has anyone installed acr 5.2 update to cs4 extended - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3265acf6b62db4b9?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Britain's horrific new photo law
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9a7f879f7bd7a51b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 6:06 am
From: "DRS"
"Paul Arthur" <flowerysong00@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:slrngq2ip6.ak7.flowerysong00@shasta.marwnad.com
> On 2009-02-22, DRS <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>> "Paul Arthur" <flowerysong00@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrngq2682.ak7.flowerysong00@shasta.marwnad.com
>>> On 2009-02-22, DRS <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> The rules on subordinate clauses haven't changed. For example, your
>>>> sentence cited above should read:
>>>>
>>>> "It seems that modern writers, even those with college degrees,
>>>> subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same what's the
>>>> difference?"
>>>
>>> No, it should read 'It seams that modern righters, even those with
>>> college degrees, subscribe to the theory "if it sounds the same,
>>> what's the difference?"'
>>>
>>> You added a missing comma and removed a necessary one. The original
>>
>> I disagree that the one I removed was necessary
>
> Then you have no business correcting anyone's comma use.
Except for the fact that I am right. Take your attitude to someone who
gives a damn.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 12:06 pm
From: "Deep Reset"
"N" <N@onyx.com> wrote in message
news:49a0beff$0$19136$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:0a01q4hmldlon53h60lkhdqu4uuuvchsak@4ax.com...
>>>There are so many people who don't understand the difference between
>>>"your" and "you're" that I have just about given up on it, except for
>>>trying to teach it to my students... One of the errors that seems to be
>>>more frequent than it used to be is "then" and "than" being misused, as
>>>well as "do" and "due". It seems that modern writers, even those with
>>>college degrees subscribe to the theory that if it sounds the same,
>>>what's the difference? Sigh.
>>
>> You teach? Not English, I hope. The above paragraph is full of
>> punctuation errors. You need to brush up on the use of commas.
>>
>
>
> Please explain the errors. My only comment on the paragraph, is that
> there are too few commas.
Well, perhaps being overly picky, I'd say you had one too many in that last
sentence.
"My only comment on the paragraph is that there are too few commas. "
See? Works better, doesn't it?
Deep.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: DPR's full D3x review
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b0c85f4ecb60c84b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 6:55 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-02-22 04:32:32 -0800, "Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> said:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>>> Why Nikon wouldn't introduce a dust-removal system in an otherwise
>>> excellent camera is beyond me, especially considering that dust
>>> removal systems are now available in many entry level models.
>>
>> According to the head of Nikon marketing in the US (I cannot for the
>> life of me remember this guy's name), the D3x was designed at the same
>> time as the D3 and was intended to be released simultaneously. But
>> even the D3 was very late. He would not tell me what was wrong with
>> the cameras that they could not be released on time; only that the
>> engineers did not like the cameras.
>>
>> Nikon's engineers are very conservative and do not like innovation --
>> they tend to do only that which works. So the D3x is really a three or
>> four year old design, which means it was designed before dust-off
>> features became popular.
>>
>> This is typical Nikon. Nikon have launched very few innovations
>> throughout their history, typically introducing them only years after
>> other camera makers have them and, even then, experimenting with
>> innovations on their consumer bodies first. This is why Nikons have a
>> great reputation for being solidly built and having great glass, but
>> otherwise being a little stodgy. In fact, the D3x is a bit of a
>> shocker in having 24 megapixels.
>>
>> This attitude of Nikon's really shows up in their endless line of "me
>> too" point and shoots, none of which have any features which make them
>> stand out from their competition.
>>
>> Canon's engineers are almost as conservative as Nikon's. If these
>> companies are going to innovate, it will be with something major, such
>> as when they introduced the digital camera in the first place. Dust
>> shakers ... meh. Revolutionizing photography ... Nikon and Canon and
>> Kodak and Leica do that. But they don't do the small stuff.
>>
>> This does not mean, of course, that these companies do not have their
>> spectacular failures when they do choose to innovate. Remember APS?
>>
>> If you want the latest gadgetry, buy a Sony, Fuji, Olympus, or some
>> other piece of crap.
>
> Well said!
>
> BTW> Did you check your D3x for the current parrot problems floating around
> the internet? Seems some units have a viewfinder that is 1º off level and
> there are a few hot pixels. Mine is good so the parrots are disappointed.
Thom Hogan had the viewfinder problem in his, but none of his
assistants did. I have not heard of any hot pixel problem.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anyone have a Sandisk Extreme III card?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/53ddc24865f14241?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 7:08 am
From: "David J Taylor"
ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:48:41 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> The fastest I've seen off any USB 2.0 solid-state device I've tested
>> is
>> 18.5MB/s, and that was a 4GB memory stick (and watch those memory
>> sticks, some write a /lot/ slower than they can read. From a
>> hard-disk I've seen a speed of 30MB/s (Seagate FreeAgent Go 320GB).
>
> A number of cards were tested here for both read and write speed
> (and more) :
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sdhc-memory-card,2143.html
Thanks, although I don't buy SD cards that expensive, as none of my
cameras need them. The fastest reader I have is my Sharkoon:
http://www.hardware.info/en-UK/productdb/bGdkZZiamJXKaMg/viewproduct/Sharkoon_FlexiDrive_XC_SDHC/
Cheers,
David
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 8:44 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
? <void.no.spam.com@gmail.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:e4509441-905b-41d5-8230-645dfed1eb06@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>I have a Sandisk Extreme III 8 GB SD card (the 30MB/sec edition), and
> I tried copying files from the hard drive to it and back, and timed
> the transfers. I copied 2 files - a 400 MB and 700 MB file (total of
> 1.1 GB) - from the HD to the SD card, and it took 75 seconds, so
> that's a write speed of about 15 MB/sec for the SD card. Then I copied
> the files back to the HD and it took 90 seconds, so that's a read
> speed of about 12 MB/sec for the SD card. Doesn't seem to live up to
> its 30 MB/sec billing. I am using the SanDisk MobileMate SDDR-104 USB
> card reader, if that makes a difference. Is anyone able to get 30 MB/
> sec transfers with this card?
I recently read an article on a german online magazine, www.spiegel.de , how
a hard drive's free space, when formatted, does not exacltly match the
advertised size. For example, my 320 GBHitachi deskstar sata 2 10400 rpm
formatted is 298 GB (Win XP greek).
YMMV.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 9:04 am
From: ASAAR
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:08:19 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
> Thanks, although I don't buy SD cards that expensive, as none of my
> cameras need them. The fastest reader I have is my Sharkoon:
Hmm. I didn't check prices in the article, but I have a number of
the Kingston and Transcend SDHC (2,4,8 and 16GB) cards and some of
them appeared to be mentioned in the article. While I can't recall
what I paid for most of these, they were all quite reasonably
priced. I think J&R (local to me) had 4GB Kingston SDHC and 4GB
SanDisk CF card for about $6, but I paid about $15 several months
earlier for a slower 8 GB Class 2 SanDisk card because that was good
enough for my mp3 player/jpg viewer.
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 9:45 am
From: Jürgen Exner
"Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <noone@nospam.com> wrote:
>I recently read an article on a german online magazine, www.spiegel.de , how
>a hard drive's free space, when formatted, does not exacltly match the
>advertised size. For example, my 320 GBHitachi deskstar sata 2 10400 rpm
>formatted is 298 GB (Win XP greek).
Well, dahhhhh! Big surprise.
Fist of all any file system has administrative overhead. Where do you
suppose directories, free sector list, etc. are stored?
And second there's the difference between decimal and binary "kilo",
"mega", and "giga", the former based on 10^3 and used by HD
manufacturers, the later based on 2^10 and commonly used in computer
science. That difference is 2.4%.
jue
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 9:55 am
From: John McWilliams
Larry Thong wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> The fastest I've seen off any USB 2.0 solid-state device I've tested
>> is 18.5MB/s, and that was a 4GB memory stick (and watch those memory
>> sticks, some write a /lot/ slower than they can read. From a
>> hard-disk I've seen a speed of 30MB/s (Seagate FreeAgent Go 320GB).
>
> The problem with USB in any format is it inherently sucks and was never
> designed for performance.
Good for keyboards and printers, but crap for volume.
>
>> Would a Firewire card reader be faster?
>
> Relative to what? Firewire is still a better form of USB but it isn't
> the cure all. When these manufacturers start using SAS or SATA for
> connecting devices, only then they will achieve high performance and
> reliability.
In the mean time FW800 is here, works, and at least for most Mac users,
emminently available. eSata requires more stuff.
--
John McWilliams
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 9:57 am
From: "David J Taylor"
Jürgen Exner wrote:
> "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <noone@nospam.com> wrote:
>> I recently read an article on a german online magazine,
>> www.spiegel.de , how a hard drive's free space, when formatted, does
>> not exacltly match the advertised size. For example, my 320
>> GBHitachi deskstar sata 2 10400 rpm formatted is 298 GB (Win XP
>> greek).
>
> Well, dahhhhh! Big surprise.
>
> Fist of all any file system has administrative overhead. Where do you
> suppose directories, free sector list, etc. are stored?
>
> And second there's the difference between decimal and binary "kilo",
> "mega", and "giga", the former based on 10^3 and used by HD
> manufacturers, the later based on 2^10 and commonly used in computer
> science. That difference is 2.4%.
>
> jue
7.3% at the gigabyte level.
1GB => 1073741824 bytes.
Cheers,
David
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 9:57 am
From: John McWilliams
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
> ? <void.no.spam.com@gmail.com> ?????? ??? ??????
> news:e4509441-905b-41d5-8230-645dfed1eb06@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> I have a Sandisk Extreme III 8 GB SD card (the 30MB/sec edition), and
>> I tried copying files from the hard drive to it and back, and timed
>> the transfers. I copied 2 files - a 400 MB and 700 MB file (total of
>> 1.1 GB) - from the HD to the SD card, and it took 75 seconds, so
>> that's a write speed of about 15 MB/sec for the SD card. Then I copied
>> the files back to the HD and it took 90 seconds, so that's a read
>> speed of about 12 MB/sec for the SD card. Doesn't seem to live up to
>> its 30 MB/sec billing. I am using the SanDisk MobileMate SDDR-104 USB
>> card reader, if that makes a difference. Is anyone able to get 30 MB/
>> sec transfers with this card?
> I recently read an article on a german online magazine, www.spiegel.de , how
> a hard drive's free space, when formatted, does not exacltly match the
> advertised size. For example, my 320 GBHitachi deskstar sata 2 10400 rpm
> formatted is 298 GB (Win XP greek).
> YMMV.
Yes, this has been true since the beginning. A certain amount of
headroom is needed for drivers, and secret sauce. .
--
john mcwilliams
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 9:58 am
From: "David J Taylor"
ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:08:19 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Thanks, although I don't buy SD cards that expensive, as none of my
>> cameras need them. The fastest reader I have is my Sharkoon:
>
> Hmm. I didn't check prices in the article, but I have a number of
> the Kingston and Transcend SDHC (2,4,8 and 16GB) cards and some of
> them appeared to be mentioned in the article. While I can't recall
> what I paid for most of these, they were all quite reasonably
> priced. I think J&R (local to me) had 4GB Kingston SDHC and 4GB
> SanDisk CF card for about $6, but I paid about $15 several months
> earlier for a slower 8 GB Class 2 SanDisk card because that was good
> enough for my mp3 player/jpg viewer.
It was just the class of card - I normally buy SanDisk Ultra, and not the
Extreme. Amongst the different manufacturers there is quite a speed
difference, and the USB memory sticks (as opposed to cards) can be very
slow writers.
Cheers,
David
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 10:16 am
From: "David J Taylor"
John McWilliams wrote:
> Larry Thong wrote:
[]
>> The problem with USB in any format is it inherently sucks and was
>> never designed for performance.
>
> Good for keyboards and printers, but crap for volume.
I have Windows systems here routinely handling 40GB/day 24 x 7 over USB
2.0, so it's not that bad.
I don't think anyone claims it provides the ultimate disk performance, but
the 100-300GB 2.5-inch portable drives are very handy backup devices....
David
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 10:30 am
From: Jürgen Exner
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
>Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> And second there's the difference between decimal and binary "kilo",
>> "mega", and "giga", the former based on 10^3 and used by HD
>> manufacturers, the later based on 2^10 and commonly used in computer
>> science. That difference is 2.4%.
>
>7.3% at the gigabyte level.
>
>1GB => 1073741824 bytes.
True, you are right. I was thinking kB only.
A long time ago in the good old days it was customary to use use lower
case to denote decimal and upper case to denote binary. So 1kB would be
1000 bytes and 1KB would be 1024 bytes.
jue
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tiny old pancake lens in modern DSLR camera - What a contrast!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a3efd7a0d81d3bfa?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 7:22 am
From: aniramca@gmail.com
Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
works.
See the following websites for the photos, or just google it in the
internet:
http://www.galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_industar50.html
http://www.retrocamera.net/2009/01/magic-with-the-industar-50-2/
I am surprised to see that there seem to be no additional
modifications (except for the adapter ring to mount on the DSLR), and
one of the website above shows reasonable picture quality.
I heard that the pancake fixed lens generally follow a simple design
from the Zeiss Tessar lens. I believe that the new Olympus 25mm 1:2.8
pancake lens also utilize the same design. How much larger is the
Olympus lens in comparison to the Industar-50mm lens? I could not get
dimensions for any of these lens, although the photos on the websites
show how tiny they are. It would be interesting if an adapter can be
made available for the old Industar (or Zeiss Tessar) lenses to fit a
Panasonic Lumix G1.
Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the camera
industry just does not want to go in this direction?
Comments?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 9:28 am
From: alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee)
<aniramca@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
> fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
> works.
Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.
>
> Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
> how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
> least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the camera
> industry just does not want to go in this direction?
The newish Olympus does this doesnt it?
Complete with a pancake lens, see here:
<http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/894339/art/olympus/e-420-zuiko-digital-
25mm.html>
Seems preety good to me, if I wasnt tied into Canon, I would get one.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Creating a Time-Lapse Movie from Digital Stills
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f012e85cc55260b5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 7:39 am
From: George Kerby
On 2/20/09 5:39 PM, in article
nospam.m-m-921C93.18391920022009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com, "M-M"
<nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:
> I made a movie of trees changing through the 4 seasons by taking stills
> of the same scene during the year. I used Photoshop Elements to align
> the layers and iMovie to make the transitions.
>
> I think the result is interesting- 4 seasons in 30 seconds. Comments
> welcome:
>
> http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/tl/tl.html
>
> You will need the Quicktime plugin to make it work, I believe.
Thanks! That was well worth the patience that it took to produce. I
congratulate you on that.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Silliest camera modes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b02d8e9b56ef77ce?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 9:10 am
From: Derge
On Feb 20, 3:26 pm, "Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "N" <N...@onyx.com> wrote in message
>
> news:499f399c$0$623$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> > "Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:gnnb90$sa4$1@news.motzarella.org...
> http://mykeong.blogspot.com/2008/11/digital-camera-olympus-fe-320.html
Behind class? Documents? *Auction*? WHAT? What does it MEAN?!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Help with specific picture
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555c4ff6162ca6f8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 10:39 am
From: "SS"
I am trying to take a picture of a pair of scissors. I have scissors on a
piece of white paper.
When I transfer to my PC the white paper is bluish and the glare on the
(metal) scissors usually ruins the shot.
Or if I dont get the glare I tend to lose the detail/
I don`t have any pro equipement and as its only a few shots so it wouldn`t
be worth buying. (using Nikon SLR)
Any thoughts on how best to take these shots.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 11:04 am
From: Pat
On Feb 22, 1:39 pm, "SS" <nonens...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I am trying to take a picture of a pair of scissors. I have scissors on a
> piece of white paper.
> When I transfer to my PC the white paper is bluish and the glare on the
> (metal) scissors usually ruins the shot.
> Or if I dont get the glare I tend to lose the detail/
> I don`t have any pro equipement and as its only a few shots so it wouldn`t
> be worth buying. (using Nikon SLR)
>
> Any thoughts on how best to take these shots.
Build yourself a light box.
In its simplest form, it's a diffused light with a controlled
background.
Put a white sheet of cloth or paper on a table. Take a BIG cardboard
box and spray paint it white. Cut a whole in it for your camera
lens. Cut two more holes -- one to left and one to right -- in the
box. Cover the light holes with something light that will diffuse the
light -- maybe wax paper. Shine a light in from each side. Take your
picture with out the scissors there. Use your camera's white balance
feature to balance the photo. Stick in the scissors and shoot away.
If you don't have white spray paint and/or are too cheap to buy
some :-) you can tape some white copy paper to all of the inside
edges. You can steal the paper from work.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 11:33 am
From: J�rgen Exner
"SS" <nonense50@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I am trying to take a picture of a pair of scissors. I have scissors on a
>piece of white paper.
>When I transfer to my PC the white paper is bluish
Adjust your white balance
>and the glare on the
>(metal) scissors usually ruins the shot.
Use a polarizing filter
jue
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 12:04 pm
From: Nicko
On Feb 22, 1:33 pm, J rgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "SS" <nonens...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >I am trying to take a picture of a pair of scissors. I have scissors on a
> >piece of white paper.
> >When I transfer to my PC the white paper is bluish
>
> Adjust your white balance
>
> >and the glare on the
> >(metal) scissors usually ruins the shot.
>
> Use a polarizing filter
>
> jue
Won't work with reflections off of metal.
--
YOP...
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Beware of Rocky Cameras, UK + Paypal
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/422cde92582b6a98?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 11:22 am
From: "Art"
I find that difficult to believe. Buyer has to prove he returned item.
Paypal has always done right by me.
"erie patsellis" <erie@eriepatsellis.com> wrote in message
news:qZkml.574708$yE1.531455@attbi_s21...
> Peter wrote:
>
>> The problem with paypal is that if you are selling, it is easy to get
>> scammed because there is an easy procedure for the buyer to get a
>> refund and not return the actual item to you.
> 100% Correct, I sold an amplifier on ebay, listed as non working, as-is,
> buyer paid received it and had buyers remorse, filed a complaint, paypal
> arbitrarily deducted the $400 from my account, then after everything was
> said and done, I have no product, and no $400 either.
>
> erie
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 11:24 am
From: "Art"
No humans at paypal? I don't think so. I paypaled $5k for an item and
paypal immediately called me to verify that it was me and that I wasn't
nuts.
"Peter" <peter0o0o0o@peter2-0-o-0.c0.uk> wrote in message
news:b06mp49u92i91mjg6e8ioi519vn5vr7s78@4ax.com...
>
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote
>
>>Really the bottom line here is that sadly there are a lot of people out
>>there ripping people off, it staggers me just how many people are quite
>>prepared to steal from other human beings, not just on Ebay but in general
>>in most communities. Paypal does try and do the right thing but sometimes
>>the get it wrong.
>>
>>
> I disagree - Paypal pretends to do "something" but actually some 98%
> of its resolutions are simply in favour of the buyer, with the other
> 2% being randomly computer chosen to generate just enough contrary
> evidence to protect Paypal from a class action in the USA.
>
> There is very little evidence of human presence in Paypal. I have been
> banging on their email facility for weeks now. I gather that if one
> goes to the small claims court then they pull somebody out to deal
> with it - even if they rarely turn up to defend claims.
>
> Paypal does the right thing for buyers nearly all the time, but this
> policy supports scammer buyers.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 12:20 pm
From: Peter
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote
>I find that difficult to believe. Buyer has to prove he returned item.
>Paypal has always done right by me.
How will the buyer prove he returned the item and not just an empty
box?
This is the common scan on Ebay. You buy something, then go to Paypal
for a "not as described" claim, Paypal takes the money out of the
seller's account immediately, pending seeing your proof of posting,
and then they refund you. You keep the original item and you also get
your money back.
Happens all the time, now that you cannot give bad feedback to a
buyer.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 12:20 pm
From: Peter
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote
>No humans at paypal? I don't think so. I paypaled $5k for an item and
>paypal immediately called me to verify that it was me and that I wasn't
>nuts.
There must be a figure above which they call you.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: has anyone installed acr 5.2 update to cs4 extended
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3265acf6b62db4b9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 22 2009 11:30 am
From: "oleuncleted@aol.com"
i installed cs4 extended then went to download the latest acr update
acr5.2 so i could open raw files from my 5d mark II and no such luck.
im following adobes instructions exactly wants me to remove camera
raw .8bi file from the files format folder only problem it isn't in
there .
suggestions ?
adobe support isn't there on the weekends .
==============================================================================
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
