rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Wish I'd said this...about a hundred times already - 7 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd0d9f3a64f5d251?hl=en
* Prada shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com ) - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1eb9ab262d198cb0?hl=en
* wholesale Air Max 87 shoes - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1fa9edc5db58f92d?hl=en
* Basic scanner questions for new user - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/938dc36d8d72a1a8?hl=en
* Modifying Canon RAW EXIF time-taken - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1e267692f0d26627?hl=en
* 1/2 pixel offset? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa1432d75b90b0ae?hl=en
* ISO & exposure comp. -- aren't they redundant? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bec119cd055b0362?hl=en
* How far is "infinity?" - Not a metaphysical query - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1af76dc834e6c187?hl=en
* Somewhere out there, a monkey just chewed up someone's drivers licence and
flung more feces ... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e162be148f308e39?hl=en
* Nikon Short Telephoto (105-135) alternatives - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cdabc4fc688cfdfd?hl=en
* Can I edit photos on a low-end laptop? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e50a3a2375c02813?hl=en
* Printing on special paper - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/542a3b490cd9e1ad?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wish I'd said this...about a hundred times already
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd0d9f3a64f5d251?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 11:55 pm
From: Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net>
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
>> [...] Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
>
> Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
> use. Whose fault is that?
Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who does?
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 4:11 am
From: Chris Malcolm
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote:
>>J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> So I don't see where there's any "crap" "getting in my way".
>>
>>Well, if you enjoy it, that's cool, I guess.
>>
>>But, to change exposure modes, I'm supposed to hold down a button while
>>turning a wheel. First of all, why?
> You picked the wrong camera.
I'm inclined to agree. I'd be pretty fed up with a DSLR as awkward to
operate as Jeremy describes.
>> Second, the modes include useless
>>"P" and "S" modes that I'm never going to use, and since it's not a
>>dedicated control, I inevitably turn it the wrong way and then I have
>>to cycle past idiot modes I don't even care if the camera has. On my
>>film camera, I just have to set the shutter speed dial to "A" when I
>>want automatic exposure. Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
> Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
> use. Whose fault is that?
However, it sounds as though it might be the case that lurking in some
parts of Jeremy's camera's modes of operation there may be ways of doing
the things Jeremy wants to do much more simply than the kind of fuss he
describes. In each of my last two cameras, while neither sounds as
awkward as he describes, it was the case that six months after getting
it and working my way through the entire manual a few times, I was
still occasionally stumbling across a way of doing something which was
a lot easier than the "obvious" way I had been doing it.
Of course if the entire camera was less complex, and hadn't got any of
those features I never use, there wouldn't be simple useful shortcuts
lurking in places it hadn't occurred to me to look. But I wouldn't
want either of them to have been less complex, because maybe once or
twice a year I find myself wanting to do a kind of photography I
"never do" for a special occasion, and almost always find that the
camera has some very useful features which make it much easier
and faster to get good results, in some cases so much easier and
faster that it can get good shots in conditions I wouldn't have
believed possible.
It's true that learning how to use these new complex digital cameras
is orders of magnitude more complicated than my old purely manual film
SLR. But once I'd mastered their sometimes obscure complexities I find
that I can do everything I used to do more quickly than I could with
the old film SLR, and quite a lot of things I could never have done
with it.
It sounds as though Jeremy wants a DSLR whose manual mode incorporates
a wheel for adjusting shutter and another wheel for adjusting
aperture. I hope it's not the case that he's overlooking a simple way
of flipping his single wheel from aperture to shutter control. On my
single-wheel DSLR, which does have the "hold down a button and turn
the wheel" way of doing it that he dislikes, there are some other less
obvious but easy ways of doing it which require less dexterity. But
nothing is quite as easy as having two dedicated wheels, and there are
enough DSLRs with that feature to make it a bit silly to rant about
having bought one which doesn't.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 5:03 am
From: Doug Jewell
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> So I don't see where there's any "crap" "getting in my way".
>
> Well, if you enjoy it, that's cool, I guess.
>
> But, to change exposure modes, I'm supposed to hold down a button while
> turning a wheel. First of all, why? Second, the modes include useless
> "P" and "S" modes that I'm never going to use, and since it's not a
> dedicated control, I inevitably turn it the wrong way and then I have
> to cycle past idiot modes I don't even care if the camera has. On my
> film camera, I just have to set the shutter speed dial to "A" when I
> want automatic exposure. Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
Yes & No. Prior to getting my GX10(rebadged Pentax K10D), I
lamented the fact that all digitals did everything with
those damned dials. I liked my classic film cameras with the
ISO & Shutter dials and an aperture ring on the lens. I
figured the ideal way would be to have an A setting on all 3
dials (for the sake of easy reading I'll refer to them all
as dials, even though the aperture ring is a... ring, not a
dial). If all are set to A the camera functions in full
auto. Moving a dial off A means that setting becomes fixed
to what the dial is set to, while any left in A are set
automatically by the camera. So to operate in aperture
priority, you'd leave the shutter dial on A, you could have
ISO on A or on a set ISO if you preferred, and then manually
set the aperture ring to the setting you preferred. Such a
system would be quite logical and easy to use IMO.
Then I got my GX10 and I realised the error of my ways. See
my old classic Pentaxes and Ricohs were wonderful cameras to
use, but you couldn't change the shutter without taking the
camera away from your eye. You could change aperture, but
you had to keep your wits about you as to how open/closed it
was. The K10D has two wheels, one under your middle finger,
and one under your thumb. It also has this wonderful setting
called "Sv" or sensitivity priority, and a feature called
hyper-program. Put the camera on Sv mode, and the rear
thumb-wheel changes ISO. The front wheel then scrolls
through the shutter/aperture combinations that will give
correct exposure. The exposure compensation button is right
next to the thumb, press that and scroll the front wheel to
lock aperture and give under/over exposure as desired. Just
near the shutter button is the magic "green button" which
resets everything back to what the camera thinks is the
ideal auto-everything setting to use as a base. Everything
is displayed in the viewfinder, so it is exceptionally quick
and easy to use - While you are composing your scene you can
see what shutter/aperture are going to be used, and adjust
both with one easy turn of the front wheel. Lighting is a
little low to get a decent shutter speed with the 300mm
lens? no worries, spin the thumb-wheel and lift the ISO.
>
> So I'm supposed to set the shutter speed with a "multi-function" dial,
> but look at what I get dedicated controls for -- JPEG quality? I
> didn't get a DSLR so I could shoot JPEGs. I'm never going to shoot
> a JPEG. White balance? What for? White balance is done in post,
> it's irrelevant. The only time I move that from auto is when shooting
> with flash, just so the preview images look right, and even then, I
> have to go through dumb little icons when all I really want is to set
> it to 5500.
Guess it depends on the way you operate - I shoot RAW+JPG,
and have the camera set to produce the type of JPG's I like.
That way, I probably won't have to do any post processing,
but I have the RAW file available if I decide I need to give
it a touch up in post. I couldn't be bothered spending hours
in front of a computer for every photo. Which is kinda like
how I operated with film - every photo got the standard 6x4
print, but the good ones got scanned, tweaked, and printed
as 8x10 or bigger. On most photos, the 6x4 was all I'd ever
bother with, with some though it was good to have the
negative to produce a better image from. I relate the 6x4 to
the JPG, and the Neg to the RAW.
>
> "1005-Pixel 3D Color Matrix Metering II" with "Scene Recognition System"?
> Really? I'm choosing a shutter speed, not sending a space probe to Mars.
> You can look at a scene and know just what a regular center-weighted meter
> is going to make of it, but you can't reliably predict the matrix metering.
> So I can switch it to center-weighted, but the stupid switch keeps getting
> moved while the camera is in my bag, so I have to remember to check that
> it's on the right setting.
Yeah can't get my head around matrix metering - I always
leave it switched to centre-weighted, at least that way it
is predictable.
>
> Dozens of autofocus modes. Thankfully, this switch knows how to stay put,
> at least.
>
> Now they're giving us lenses that don't even have aperture rings. I'm
> supposed to set the aperture with another multi-function dial. What for?
as above - when implemented properly, this actually works
better than an aperture ring. Unfortunately most cameras
don't implement this properly.
>
> A menu dive to turn Auto ISO on and off. Great. Adjust ISO with the same
> multi-function wheel you're supposed to use for shutter speed. Or is it
> aperture?
As above - when implemented properly it works a treat. When
not implemented properly it's a dog.
>
> More and more features to add to a list, and most of them don't help you
> take better pictures at all. They just give you more to fiddle with so
> you can feel like you know what you're doing.
Most of the settings are to allow you to set image
parameters that previously would have been determined by
film type. You frequently see posted here that this is
digital's big advantage, that you can change this on a shot
to shot basis, instead of only per roll of film. Yeah, guess
that's a plus, but I find I tend to shoot mostly on 1 of 3
settings. With film I usually had one body loaded with
velvia or another slide film for landscapes, one loaded with
a more gentle film for portrait type work, and one loaded
with a mid speed B&W film. Now before you all go on about
carrying 3 cameras when one DSLR will do the job, you
generally know ahead of time which film type will be most
appropriate, and only take that one body. On a cost basis,
the film bodies were a fraction of the cost of a digital
body, and they were considerably lighter and smaller so
carrying 2 or 3 film bodies wasn't that big of a deal.
>Shoot, check the LCD,
> adjust exposure, shoot again. You see people doing it outside in the
> sun. What do you even need a light meter for, outside on a sunny day?
> Remember when you didn't have the LCD and you still got it right, even
> shooting slides with no latitude?
Dunno why light metering on digitals is so atrocious. My
film cameras, even going back to my 1963 Yashica MIII
rangefinder, would meter right pretty much every time - yeah
there was the odd occassion where you'd have to give them a
slight tweak if you had a large mass of black or white in
the image, but it was pretty rare. And even with slide film,
they got it right pretty much every time. Enter digital, and
something as simple as a scenic with green trees and blue
sky, becomes a pain of trouble, shooting and reshooting with
different exposures to try to get the right balance of sky
not being blown white, and land not being blocked shadows.
Perhaps it was just the better latitude of film, but
shooting a scenic was basically point and shoot, because the
meter would get it right every time. Took me ages to work
out settings that would get rid of the white skies with
digital. Must admit my 450D on "highlight tone priority" is
a hell of a lot better than any of my older digitals, but
still not as good as any of my film cameras in that regard.
>
> And we have to replace the camera every few years, to boot, bypass all
> the automatic crap all over again, and pay for a whole load of bollocks
> that doesn't matter in the least, just to get new "film". A camera
> isn't a complicated device; it shouldn't get between you and the
> pictures. Sure, it's all stuff you learn to work with, but try
> shooting with a simple camera again and it's just a whole different
> experience.
As much as I love the instant feedback of the digital and
the very low operating cost, I still find I take better
photos when I'm shooting film. I think subconsciously I go
into a different mindset.
>
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 6:58 am
From: John A.
On 10 Mar 2009 06:55:37 GMT, Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net>
wrote:
>Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> [...] Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
>>
>> Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
>> use. Whose fault is that?
>
>Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who does?
Most of the manufacturers probably have their manuals available online
as PDFs. That might be a good place to look when comparison shopping.
JA
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 8:32 am
From: nospam
In article <71mh79FlstehU1@mid.individual.net>, Jeremy Nixon < )@(>
wrote:
> Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who does?
all of nikon's dslrs have a shutter speed dial - it's the control wheel
on the back of the camera. aperture is controlled with the control
wheel on the front, except for the low end models (d40, d50, d60) which
lack a second control wheel and have a button to toggle the function of
the rear control wheel (only an issue in manual mode). using the
control wheels is easier and more accurate than twisting an old style
shutter speed dial or a ring on the lens.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 9:46 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote:
>Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> [...] Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
>>
>> Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
>> use. Whose fault is that?
>
>Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial.
Sure they do.
> Who does?
So does Canon. You set the camera to shutter priority (that's the
'T' for time setting on the dial) and then the control wheel sets the
shutter speed. Aperture priority works the same way.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 1:05 pm
From: Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net>
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> all of nikon's dslrs have a shutter speed dial - it's the control wheel
> on the back of the camera.
No, that's a multi-function dial. It does a lot more than shutter speed;
it changes the exposure mode, adjusts the ISO, etc.
I'm interested in a shutter speed dial, sitting atop the camera, with
shutter speeds printed on it and click-stops at each.
> aperture is controlled with the control wheel on the front, except for
> the low end models (d40, d50, d60) which lack a second control wheel
> and have a button to toggle the function of the rear control wheel
> (only an issue in manual mode).
Aperture is controlled with whichever dial you want, actually. On my
camera, aperture is controlled with the wheel on the back of the camera
and shutter speed with the one on the front, because I prefer it that
way and you can change it. Also, when in aperture priority mode, the
wheel on the front controls exposure compensation instead of shutter
speed.
> using the control wheels is easier and more accurate than twisting
> an old style shutter speed dial or a ring on the lens.
Like I said, if you like it, great, but I don't agree with that assessment.
I ended up setting the camera to use the aperture ring on the lens instead
of the multi-function dial, which (since I use a lot of Ai-S lenses) keeps
it more consistent; the only time I have to use the dial is if I'm using
a "G" lens, and I only have one of those.
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Prada shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1eb9ab262d198cb0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 1:41 am
From: nikemangoodshoes@126.com
Bape shoes
Chanel shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
D&G shoes
Dior shoes
ED hardy shoes
Evisu shoes
Fendi shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Gucci shoes `
Hogan shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Lv shoes
Prada shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Timberland shoes
Tous shoes
Ugg shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Ice cream shoes
Sebago shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Lacoste shoes
Air force one shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
TODS shoes
AF shoes
Footwear (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Paul Smith shoes
Jordan shoes
Bape shoes
Chanel shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
D&G shoes
Dior shoes
ED hardy shoes
Evisu shoes
Fendi shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Gucci shoes
Hogan shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Lv shoes
Prada shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Timberland shoes
Tous shoes
Ugg shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Ice cream shoes
Sebago shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Lacoste shoes
==============================================================================
TOPIC: wholesale Air Max 87 shoes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1fa9edc5db58f92d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 1:42 am
From: nikemangoodshoes@126.com
discount Air max 95 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
wholesale Air Max 87 shoes
discount Air MAX LTD shoes
sell Air max 90 shoes
discount Air Max 88 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount Air MAX 89 shoes
discount Air max tn shoes
discount Air Max tn8 shoes
discount Air MAX tn9 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount MEN'S WOMEN'S Shox R5 R4 trainers
discount Men's women's shocks OZ NZ TL trainers
For more products pls visit: www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount Air max 95 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
wholesale Air Max 87 shoes
discount Air MAX LTD shoes
sell Air max 90 shoes
discount Air Max 88 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount Air MAX 89 shoes
discount Air max tn shoes
discount Air Max tn8 shoes
discount Air MAX tn9 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount MEN'S WOMEN'S Shox R5 R4 trainers
discount Men's women's shocks OZ NZ TL trainers
For more products pls visit: www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount Air max 95 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
wholesale Air Max 87 shoes
discount Air MAX LTD shoes
sell Air max 90 shoes
discount Air Max 88 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount Air MAX 89 shoes
discount Air max tn shoes
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Basic scanner questions for new user
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/938dc36d8d72a1a8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 1:44 am
From: Bob Williams
goldtech wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a bunch of old 35mm slides and color and bw negatives. I want
> to by a scanner.
>
> I'm looking for websites that very simply explain the process.
>
> I also need a recommendation for the best value in a scanner. I see
> the Nikons but the price of admission is about 1K for that high
> quality. Is there a unit with comparible quality for less, or least
> one that's less $$$ and not a piece of junk...
>
> What is the difference between Slverfast and VueScan and Photoshop?
>
> What software does a scanner need besides drivers? (I assume I'll have
> to install drivers for it.)
>
> What the best way to clean fingerprints and dust from old slides and
> film?
>
> Real basic questions I know, and I appreciate if you can point me in
> the right direction.
>
> thanks,
>
> Lee G.
IMHO, It is a real PIA to scan color slides. It it quite slow even after
you master the learning curve. After scanning about 50 slides, you get
bored to death with the overall process.
I personally recommend using one of the many vendors that offer a
scanning service at a VERY reasonable price. I would not consider
scanning slides for anyone else for 27-35 cents each, so why subject
yourself to the hassle. Google on SLIDE SCANNING SERVICE and you will
find a bunch of shops that offer to scan your slides and put them on a
premium CD or DVD for a mere pittance.
Here is one of many offerings..........Bob Williams
http://www.digmypics.com/SlideScanning.aspx?g=slide%20scanning%20service&gclid=CLi_lPT1l5kCFQ0hDQodIURBZQ
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 3:43 am
From: ransley
On Mar 9, 5:46 pm, goldtech <goldt...@worldpost.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a bunch of old 35mm slides and color and bw negatives. I want
> to by a scanner.
>
> I'm looking for websites that very simply explain the process.
>
> I also need a recommendation for the best value in a scanner. I see
> the Nikons but the price of admission is about 1K for that high
> quality. Is there a unit with comparible quality for less, or least
> one that's less $$$ and not a piece of junk...
>
> What is the difference between Slverfast and VueScan and Photoshop?
>
> What software does a scanner need besides drivers? (I assume I'll have
> to install drivers for it.)
>
> What the best way to clean fingerprints and dust from old slides and
> film?
>
> Real basic questions I know, and I appreciate if you can point me in
> the right direction.
>
> thanks,
>
> Lee G.
I did a buch of old Kodachromes with a 3 yr old Canon MP 950 canons
all in one. You realy dont need to spend big bucks for a good scanner
anymore. In the last 3 years scanners have improved alot. Depending on
camera, film, and photographer, you may not notice the difference in
a expensive nikon scanner
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 6:49 am
From: Keith Nuttle
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "goldtech" <goldtech@worldpost.com> wrote:
>> I have a bunch of old 35mm slides and color and bw negatives. I want
>> to by a scanner.
>>
>> I'm looking for websites that very simply explain the process.
>
> http://www.scantips.com/
>
>> I also need a recommendation for the best value in a scanner. I see
>> the Nikons but the price of admission is about 1K for that high
>> quality. Is there a unit with comparible quality for less, or least
>> one that's less $$$ and not a piece of junk...
>
> The Nikon 5000 is very nice, and the "V" model is almost as nice.
>
> I've not heard of a cheap scanner that's even close. If you are doing fine
> art prints, you need a Nikon.
>
> That said, if all you need is 5x7" and smaller prints, you'd probably be
> happy with an Epson, Canon, or HP flatbed scanner. I'd look for a "4800 ppi"
> Epson scanner with a slide scanning attachment (I'm not sure what the
> current model number are). These scanners are nowhere near the advertized
> resolution, so 5x7 really is the limit _for quality prints_. You'll probably
> be happy with 8x10s from them.
>
>> What is the difference between Slverfast and VueScan and Photoshop?
>
> Silverfast (expensive and only works on one scanner per license) and Vuescan
> (affordable and works on many scanners) are in competition. You may not need
> either. For scanning, Photoshop elements should be enough (you will use it
> to adjust and prepare scans for printing or display on the web).
>
>> What software does a scanner need besides drivers? (I assume I'll have
>> to install drivers for it.)
>
> The scanner will come with drivers and a scanning program. After that, you
> need a photo editing program, such as Photoshop elements. The Epson software
> isn't great, but mostly works. (I use Vuescan with the V700.) A free copy of
> Photoshop elements may even come with the scanner.
>
>> Real basic questions I know, and I appreciate if you can point me in
>> the right direction.
>
> Scantips is where to start.
>
If you are scanning pictures there is no need to scan them individually.
It speeds up the process to scan as many as you can place on the
scanner bed. Individually or in groups they all get scanned a the same
resolution.
You can then go back when you have time and crop and save each picture.
I am doing my cropping and saving as I watch TV, sort of like a person
who knits.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 6:57 am
From: Keith Nuttle
Bob Williams wrote:
> goldtech wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a bunch of old 35mm slides and color and bw negatives. I want
>> to by a scanner.
>>
>> I'm looking for websites that very simply explain the process.
>>
>> I also need a recommendation for the best value in a scanner. I see
>> the Nikons but the price of admission is about 1K for that high
>> quality. Is there a unit with comparible quality for less, or least
>> one that's less $$$ and not a piece of junk...
>>
>> What is the difference between Slverfast and VueScan and Photoshop?
>>
>> What software does a scanner need besides drivers? (I assume I'll have
>> to install drivers for it.)
>>
>> What the best way to clean fingerprints and dust from old slides and
>> film?
>>
>> Real basic questions I know, and I appreciate if you can point me in
>> the right direction.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Lee G.
>
> IMHO, It is a real PIA to scan color slides. It it quite slow even after
> you master the learning curve. After scanning about 50 slides, you get
> bored to death with the overall process.
> I personally recommend using one of the many vendors that offer a
> scanning service at a VERY reasonable price. I would not consider
> scanning slides for anyone else for 27-35 cents each, so why subject
> yourself to the hassle. Google on SLIDE SCANNING SERVICE and you will
> find a bunch of shops that offer to scan your slides and put them on a
> premium CD or DVD for a mere pittance.
> Here is one of many offerings..........Bob Williams
>
> http://www.digmypics.com/SlideScanning.aspx?g=slide%20scanning%20service&gclid=CLi_lPT1l5kCFQ0hDQodIURBZQ
>
At 35 cents per slide he could buy a good slide scanner. I have over
40000 slides that would take about 14000 to get converted.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Modifying Canon RAW EXIF time-taken
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1e267692f0d26627?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 3:08 am
From: "Hans Kruse"
"Dilip" <barman@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:a41dee41-2d37-403e-a4c6-81e07996c342@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a tool available for Windows that will modify in a Canon RAW
> file the EXIF time-taken of a picture? I love a tool called jhead and
> regularly use it to set exported JPGs timestamps to the time taken.
> Yesterday, I shot on my Canon 30D and didn't realize that the time had
> changed +1 hour. I can use jhead to adjust all the JPGs taken
> yesterday after 1a by +1hour - but I shoot jpg+RAW. Can the RAWs be
> modified as well? Thanks!
RoboGeo can change the time in the RAW file. Adobe Lightroom also, but only
in the Lightroom database and not in the RAW files directly.
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 1/2 pixel offset?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa1432d75b90b0ae?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 3:38 am
From: bugbear
Rich wrote:
> bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in news:-
> qOdnZh0LrwAtCjUnZ2dnUVZ8j0LAAAA@posted.plusnet:
>
>> Can anyone remember the name of a high-res camera-back
>> that used a tiny movement of the sensor to double
>> up the resolution?
>>
>> I've googled and failed :-(
>>
>> BugBear
>>
>
> Sounds like "sub-pixel rendering."
Further searching revealed the "imacon"
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Imacon-launch-Flexframe-3020-digital-camera-back-280
BugBear
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ISO & exposure comp. -- aren't they redundant?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bec119cd055b0362?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 4:27 am
From: "Toby"
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:87ljrfvvhs.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Toby" <kymarto@oyahooo.com> wrote:
>>> Where is the logic in all of this? In the digital world,
>>> aren't ISO and exposure compensation redundant, anyway?
>>
>>No one ever accused Canon of having good ergonomics...
>>
>>In a word, yes they are redundant in terms of function, but there are good
>>reasons to have both.
>
> The good reasons are that they are *not* redundant.
> /Each/ /control/ /provides/ /a/ /distinctly/ /separate/ /function/.
>
> The *ISO* *value* selects the gain of the amplifiers between
> the sensor and the Analog-to-Digital-Converter (ADC).
> For all practical purposes that sets "sensitivity" of
> the camera to light, and more specifically it *determines*
> *what* *scene* *brightness* *level* *will* *be* *recorded* *as* *the*
> *maximum* *digital* *brightness* *level* *in* *the* *image*.
>
> *Exposure* *Compensation* is an adjustment to the
> camera's light metering system. It sets the light level
> at which the meter reads "0". That is, it *determines* *where*
> *scene's* *middle* *gray* *will* *be* in relation to the maximum
> digital brightness level that is set by the ISO value.
>
> ISO and EC each perform a very different function. If a
> scene is metered, and exposure is adjusted (either
> automatically or manually) for the meter to read 0, a
> given level of scene brightness will produce a specific
> digital brightness value that is recorded in the image
> produced by the camera.
>
> Changing the ISO value changes the sensitivity of the
> camera's sensor. If the ISO is made 1 fstop more
> sensitive, the same scene will read +1 on the meter.
> That will cause automatic exposure modes to reduce
> exposure to get a reading of 0 on the meter, and the
> effect will be to have *exactly* *the* *same* digital
> brightness values recorded by the camera. The same image
> will be recorded!
>
> If instead the EC value is changed to -1, the meter will
> then read +1, and again in automatic exposure modes the
> camera will adjust exposure to get a meter reading of 0,
> which will reduce the digital brightness values that the
> camera records by 1 fstop across the entire recorded
> image. At different image will be recorded!
>
> If the shutter is fired only when the meter reads 0,
> then ISO will set the maximum digital value recorded,
> and EC will set which value middle grey is recorded at.
>
> Again, the ISO value sets the sensitivity of the sensor
> to determine brightness levels that are recorded as
> image data. It sets the absolute maximum light value
> that can be recorded as part of an image will be.
>
> The EC value sets the sensitivity of the metering
> system. It sets the light value that will be recorded
> as middle grey in an image when the meter reads 0.
>
> The rest of these comments are based on a misunderstanding
> of ISO and EC:
>
>>You want to have your base ISO as a given, and not
>>have to worry about math in the field. Much easier to set ISO 320 and go
>>+/-
>>1 EV than to sit and have to think about switching from 640 to 160. Also,
>>when you adjust exposure compensation you get a warning in the viewfinder
>>so
>>that you know that your effective ISO has been changed from your base
>>setting. Beyond that, you have the exposure compensation information
>>included in the EXIF data, which gives you valuable information about the
>>behavior of your meter.
>
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Yes that is indeed right, and thanks for the correction. You should think
about getting your keyboard fixed. The shift+8 seems to be stuck ;-)
Toby
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How far is "infinity?" - Not a metaphysical query
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1af76dc834e6c187?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 4:56 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Eric Miller" <miller_nospam_eric@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:K6asl.13680$19.13559@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:gor8t9$852$1@qmul...
>> No ther moon isn;t actually atv infinitey, perhaps the known edge of the
>> universe can
>> be considered to be infinity. :)
>>
>
> What "edge" are you talking about?
>
The edge in this case being the farthest point we can detect in our
universe.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Somewhere out there, a monkey just chewed up someone's drivers licence
and flung more feces ...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e162be148f308e39?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 7:26 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
Ï "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:IKftl.16120$Db2.11733@edtnps83...
> Ooops, I had a typo in one of the links I inserted in this post. The
> proper links should be:
>
> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)
>
> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip-small.jpg (quick
> loading)
>
>
>
> "Get Real" <gr@spambegone.org> wrote in message
> news:fnk9r454g4rrv25gk0nifpm20nt7ns5a8r@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 02:29:59 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>After reading the Real Deal's tyrade, yesterday, I started to think that,
>>>"Hey, maybe my pics were just accidents." So, I took Mich for a bus ride
>>>and took another picture of him.
>>>
>>>You be the judge:
>>>
>>>MichOnBus-:
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.jpg (full size)
>>>
>>>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg
>>>(quick
>>>loading)
>>>
>>>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.cr2 (original
>>>RAW)
>>>
>>>Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
>>>
>>>The above links address pictures which are Copyrighted by Dudley Hanks,
>>>2009, all rights reserved.
>>>
>>>You are granted permission to download and view these images for personal
>>>use and critical review. However, permission must be granted by myself
>>>for
>>>any commercial use, display in a web site / gallery, or for any method of
>>>publication.
>>>
>>>Take Care,
>>>Dudley
>>>
>>
>> Commercial use? You're losing your mind along with your sight.
>>
>> This is better, how? Another ordinary snapshot like any school-kid would
>> take with their cell-phone camera when on a field-trip bus outing. To top
>> it off your P&S camera focused on the dog's ear and leash around its
>> neck,
>> putting the main features of the dog's face out of focus, including the
>> eyes. If you were going to do it right you would have focused somewhere
>> on
>> the dog's snout just in front of the eye, so the nose to ear were all in
>> focus. Unless you are trying to portray a vehicle out of control then you
>> should have at least held the camera more level, or straightened and
>> cropped in editing. The exposure is wrong, you lost valuable detail in
>> all
>> the shadows and didn't properly expose for the highlights. That's what
>> people get for wishfully depending on a "fancy" camera do all the work
>> for
>> them.
>>
>> The woman with chin in hand in the background of the image is just as
>> amused as everyone else being subjected to your carnival sideshow act.
>> Watching a blind guy trying to pretend he can do photography. "Awwww....
>> isn't that cute, look at what the monkey is trying to do ..." To bad that
>> she didn't get to see the results too--more flung feces.
>>
>> Consumer camera technology is not going to replace your eyes. Grow-up and
>> face reality. If I lost my eyesight I would face it like an adult and
>> switch gears; probably devote more to my music interests; taking another
>> stab at honing my skills on shakuhachi or maybe some other instrument I
>> haven't tried yet. Maybe go back to sculpting or some other artistic
>> interest that's not wholly vision dependent. There are thousands of
>> things
>> that one can pursue without eyesight. It wouldn't bother me in the least
>> if
>> I lost my eyesight. Just as a personal test I lived that way once for two
>> weeks, alone, to see what it would be like and if it would bother me. I
>> found hundreds of things to do while living without eyesight. But at
>> least
>> I wouldn't make a public fool of myself trying to pretend to do what I
>> would now be incapable of doing. Or in your case, could never do to begin
>> with, your skills so far have proved that you never were talented with a
>> camera.
>>
>> Want some constructive criticism? In case you refuse to grow up and face
>> realty. Quit trying to use shallow DOF in your photography. You can't see
>> well enough to make proper use of it. Any time that you try you only
>> destroy the photo that you were hoping to capture. Auto-focus is not
>> intelligent enough to do it for you, in any camera. Set your camera to
>> manual focus and leave it set on a hyperfocal setting, turn it into even
>> more of an Instamatic snapshot camera so all your faults and limitations
>> aren't so blatantly obvious to those with functional eyes. Make
>> composition
>> your goal, not the individual subjects. I'm not sure what you'll do about
>> your dependency on auto-exposure too, other than to learn the faults of
>> your camera and count how many EV button presses it should take to
>> override
>> the camera designer's stupidity. Learn to hide your limitations with your
>> camera. Then it won't look like you're an insecure idiot trying to be
>> what
>> you can never be. Instead you'll only be one of the many millions of
>> mundane snapshot photographers with a grade-school level of field-trip
>> cell-phone-camera talent. You're only amplifying your faults and
>> limitations and then broadcasting them to the world with what you are
>> doing
>> now. You're looking like a delusional dwarf running around on the
>> basketball court who is hoping to be drafted by a pro team.
>> Embarrassingly
>> entertaining.
>>
>> Find something else you might be good at one day because it's never going
>> to be photography. I'm doing you a huge favor in being the only one here
>> who is completely honest with you. The rest are only amusing you out of
>> their own personal fears, insecurities, and the worst self-serving motive
>> of all--pity. Grow up and deal with it.
>>
>> Get Real.
>>
>>
>
> Ah, you did say a couple of semi-intelligent things in this post. Nice
> change. But, obviously, we still have a ways to go.
>
> Too bad you shot yourself in the foot when you said that my
> "point-and-shoot" camera focused on the dogs ears and collar, followed by,
> you should quit using shallow DOF. Taken together, these two statements
> show how little you really know about photography. First of all, P&S
> cameras can't achieve that shallow of DOF, see:
>
> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)
>
> http://www.photographic.dudley-hanks.com/Images/BusTrip-small.jpg
>
> This pic, although shot on a P&S at a wider aperture than the one with
> shallow DOF, definitely has more DOF. Most knowledgeable shooters know
> that you can't do shallow DOF with a P&S, but I'm flattered you think I
> have the skills to get that shallow DOF from a P&S cam.
>
> Still, if you are going to offer vitriolic critiques, at least, get your
> facts right... Perhaps you'll garner a wee bit of credibility that way.
>
> Second, you seem to think it is an acceptable goal for a sighted shooter
> to tilt a camera in order to portray a bus out of control. So, why can't
> I use that technique, or lost detail in shadows for that matter, to depict
> an event experienced by a blind individual, after all, I lose way more
> shadow detail than that when I look at a scene. You operate on the wrong
> premise that the picture you would have tried to capture in my situation
> is the same image I want to capture. You're wrong. The image I WANT is
> drastically different than any image you would shoot. I'd go so far as to
> say that YOU CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE AN IMAGE I WOULD WANT TO CAPTURE, which
> will always result in my shooting pics you can't understand. But, hey,
> you might at least TRY to exercise your imagination in order to
> tentatively ponder alternative interpretations of my work? Or, is your
> mind so narrow you are incapable of that. I guess that's why you are
> critiquing pics here in Usenet, as opposed to getting paid for your
> opinions by a media outlet / trades newsletter.
>
> Regarding the shallow DOF, many of my current pics use it because it
> yields a result I am after: rendering visible a world that isn't
> perfectly focused. After all, I DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE EVERYTHING
> IS PERFECTLY FOCUSED.
>
> And, no, I won't put down my camera just because you get embarrassed by my
> pics.
>
> By your logic, Beethoven should have stopped his hammerings long before
> composing his 5th symphony; Hellen Keller should have given up and
> committed suicide; and Governor Patterson should be working for a
> charity. Fortunately, some of us can see past our limitations.
>
> It was once pointed out that "it takes a village" to raise a child. Well,
> in my case, it takes a team to make a photograph, which isn't all that
> much different than for sighted shooters, most just don't realize it.
>
> When learning their trade, photographers learn from others what works,
> what doesn't and how to interpret scenes they are confronted by. They
> then apply that knowledge to future pics. And, especially in the early
> days, they learn a great deal from feedback they receive from friends,
> family members and clients after each pic is reviewed (either formally, or
> informally).
>
> Why should I be denied the benefit of feedback simply because I have a
> vision limitation? According to your logic, people shouldn't be given
> wheelchairs when they lose their legs, because their pathetic attempts to
> get around their community is an embarrassment to the able-bodied people
> they meet strolling down the sidewalk?
>
> The biggest hurdle I have to overcome when displaying my work is to
> educate my viewers that I am NOT trying to photograph images in a
> traditional fashion. Instead, I am trying to use traditional techniques
> to photograph scenes which REPRESENT small slices of my world.
>
> You seem to think that your twisted logic is superior to others. But,
> what you fail to realize is that your comments simply highlight your lack
> of empathetic development. According to Stephen Covey (in Seven Habits of
> Highly Effective People), achieving symbiotic relationships with others is
> preferable to self-sufficiency because it allows each individual to not
> only benefit from their own skills and talents, but to achieve an even
> higher standard of living because each member of the relationship gains
> from others' abilities.
>
> But, so much for my rant. Now, back to the picture.
>
> I actually appreciate your feedback. Indeed, you do tell me things others
> won't, and that helps a great deal (whether you want it to or not, I can't
> say).
>
> I was aware of some of what you wrote, in particular that the camera
> wasn't level, and that the face isn't entirely in focus. But, if you
> could just hold your attitude in check for a moment, you might understand,
> as I've explained, that my pics SHOULD NOT look like pics of sighted
> shooters. I have always shot with the premise that my pics should contain
> a bit of me in each, because it is that personal touch which makes pics
> unique / indellible.
>
> Hence, if I want to shoot pics about a blind person's world, why would I
> want to remove all indications that the shooter is blind? That would
> defeat my purpose and would truly reduce my work to run-of-the-mill
> snapshots. Right? But, when you can look at my shots and see my stamp and
> think, "Hey, his world is kind of neat, even though it is a bit unstable."
> Then, I have conveyed a bit of what it's like to live in a blind person's
> world. I can't say it enough: If a sighted shooter shot pics like these
> and said, "Hey, I'm trying to portray a bit of what it's like to live in a
> blind person's world," he'd probably get tons of critical acclaim and
> awards would roll in. Right? I'd bet on it. Why can't I use the
> technique when I'm an actual blind person trying to shoot pics that
> portray that same reality?
>
> Regarding the woman looking at us, how do you know that she is looking at
> us because I'm trying to take a picture. Believe me, when I step onto a
> bus (where dogs are not allowed) with my rather large shepherd, all eyes
> are on us. And, they continue to watch us simply because we are a
> distraction from the daily humdrum of their lives.
>
> I had one bus driver say to me once, when I boarded his bus with a
> previous shepherd guide, "I love it when you get on the bus."
>
> At first, I thought he was glad because he got to experience my wonderful
> wit and fluent small talk, but he set me straight when he added, "...
> because when you are sitting there with that big shepherd, everyone is so
> well behaved."
>
> So, once again, your interpretation of my work is based on your projecting
> your dissatisfaction with your own existance onto my reality. If I can
> make people smile, whether it be because of bringing a dog into a place
> where it isn't normally found, or whether it is because they find my
> antics amusing, pathetic, or whatever, great! I've made the world a more
> beautiful place, even if it is just for a moment, or for a few minutes.
>
> You said you tried living as a blind person for a short time, by
> blindfolding yourself. But, that doesn't give you the whole picture. You
> KNEW you weren't actually blind, so it is easy for you to think, hey, I
> can do this. The fact that you can take the blinders off should you truly
> face a life and death situation is always in the back of your mind,
> whether you admit that to yourself or not. Things look WAY different when
> that safety net is removed, and you TRULY have to face reality. Ask any
> blind person who has had to confront a sightless future.
>
> Sadly, though, by blindfolding yourself, you missed the good side of the
> situation, too. You didn't see the reactions of the people you were
> interacting with.
>
> When it comes to photography, I get to experience a bit of that
> interaction. In many of my pics, there are people watching me, or my dog,
> or both of us together. To experience a bi-species team at work,
> communicating with each other and solving a problem is something I hope
> you get to experience in your life time. For me, I have been fortunate
> enough not only to watch such a team, but to actually be an integral part
> of three teams.
>
> For me, having my dog help me find my way to the mall is no different than
> asking people for information about a scene I want to shoot, or for
> feedback about shots I've already taken. It is all part of the process,
> and, while it becomes an integral component in my work, it does not void
> my work. Just like any other photographer's talent is not negated by his
> mentors / instructors / clients' feedback, even though the photog makes
> adjustments based on their comments and ideas.
>
> As I've told other detractors in the past, please, keep the feedback
> coming. I may use it; I may not. But, whatever you say, it gives me
> something to think about, and it gives me very valuable details about my
> images, details I couldn't use (even if I wanted to) if I didn't get it.
I liked very much this photo, we can see now the golden colour of your dog.
What I especially like about dogs, it's their loyalty, and thay can be
trained, too, which, of course, is impossible with cats. Don't worry about
the troll, it's a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black,
Trying to reason with him is tantamount to emptying the Atlantic Ocean with
a bucket, better ignore him. I also liked very much the B&W photo you took
of your dog, that is another good thing with dogs, taking a good photo of a
cat is almost impossible, mine always came close to the camera out of
curiosity, to see what it is.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon Short Telephoto (105-135) alternatives
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cdabc4fc688cfdfd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 8:20 am
From: "William Jones"
Thanks Paul. I should have mentioned I'd be using the lens on my D3.
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:nnmtl.8478$jZ1.3427@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
> William Jones wrote:
>> I'm looking for an AF prime lens in the 105-135 range. It must be
>> extremely sharp.
>>
>> Am I correct in assuming that the only glass available that fills this
>> need is the 105 Micro, the 105 DC and the 135 DC?
>
> Just the 105 Micro if you are mounting on a D60 or D40 and want AF but I'm
> guessing that's not the case. There should be some third-party options,
> and of course zooms, which you ruled out.
>
> The 105 DC/135 DC are faster f/2 lenses, the 105 DC gets a better rating
> here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html I'd consider trading my
> 85/1.4D for one of these, even if they were manual focus.
>
> The 105 f/2.8 Micro is slow to AF... perhaps more precise but not easy for
> action. It has VR but that won't help you get 'extremely sharp'.
>
> --
> Paul Furman
> www.edgehill.net
> www.baynatives.com
>
> all google groups messages filtered due to spam
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 12:42 pm
From: Claudio Bonavolta
William Jones wrote:
> I'm looking for an AF prime lens in the 105-135 range. It must be extremely
> sharp.
>
> Am I correct in assuming that the only glass available that fills this need
> is the 105 Micro, the 105 DC and the 135 DC?
>
> TIA---
Yes, you're right, these 3 lenses are those in present catalog and all
are very sharp.
The macro lens is one stop slower and best suited for macro work or
general photography.
The other two are fast lenses and are very good for low-light
photography or subjects that require a limited depth of field
(portraits, ...).
The choice between them depends mostly on the subject.
I use the 105/2.0 DC which is incredibly sharp, one of my sharpest lenses.
I can't say I use the de-focus feature that much ...
Claudio Bonavolta
http://www.bonavolta.ch
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can I edit photos on a low-end laptop?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e50a3a2375c02813?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 8:33 am
From: SMS
Peabody wrote:
> It's a long story, but I don't read small print so well. So I use a
> CRT monitor with my desktop computer and run it at 800x600. (When I
> try to do that with an LCD monitor, it looks like shit. Something
> about a digital display needing to run at it's native resolution.
> Adjusting DPI helps, but then things don't always fit.
>
> Anyway, the color, temperature, contrast, etc. on the CRT I keep a
> good ways away from normal, on purpose, because it's easier to read
> that way, so I definitely don't want to edit with it.
>
> But I have a little two-year-old Toshiba laptop that I use
> occasionally, and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen. But,
> it uses a Celeron 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can easily
> add more RAM, but only to 1GB. But if I do that, could I reasonably
> use something like Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just be
> unbearably slow?
Yes, it would be unbearably slow.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 10:15 am
From: isw
In article <N4Hsl.32860$Tp5.17264@newsfe13.iad>,
Peabody <waybackNO784SPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's a long story, but I don't read small print so well. So I use a
> CRT monitor with my desktop computer and run it at 800x600. (When I
> try to do that with an LCD monitor, it looks like shit. Something
> about a digital display needing to run at it's native resolution.
> Adjusting DPI helps, but then things don't always fit.
>
> Anyway, the color, temperature, contrast, etc. on the CRT I keep a
> good ways away from normal, on purpose, because it's easier to read
> that way, so I definitely don't want to edit with it.
>
> But I have a little two-year-old Toshiba laptop that I use
> occasionally, and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen. But,
> it uses a Celeron 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can easily
> add more RAM, but only to 1GB. But if I do that, could I reasonably
> use something like Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just be
> unbearably slow?
>
> I'm really new to digital photography, and I doubt I'll be doing a
> large volume of editing. So I thought if I could get away with
> using the laptop to edit, then pictures I send out would look right
> to others with normal monitors.
Editing photos to "look right" on *any* monitor is probably not a good
idea, not least because so few people bother to calibrate theirs (and
because with less expensive flat-panel monitors, it may not even be
possible).
Get a good book on photo editing; it'll teach you how to do most of your
work by using the photo editing app's tools, and nearly ignoring the
display. I learned it from the years-old "Professional Photoshop" by Dan
Margulis.
And you might take a look at "Gimp", which is an open-source image
editor that offers a lot of the power of Photoshop at a considerably
lower cost (it's free).
Isaac
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Printing on special paper
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/542a3b490cd9e1ad?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 9:58 am
From: "dimzenith"
>Ockham's Razor wrote:
>> Is there any photo printing service that can make prints of up to 20x30
>> on paper other than "glossy or matte"?
>>
>> What I have are several photo TIFF's that have been "Painted" with
>> PainterX.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>Check out this site.
>http://www.photoatlarge.com/index.html
>Bob Williams
>
>
Adorama Pix has that size in Metallic and Lustre: http://www.adoramapix.com/PriceList.aspx
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 10:13 am
From: Pat
On Mar 8, 1:10 pm, Ockham's Razor <Menc...@pdx.net> wrote:
> Is there any photo printing service that can make prints of up to 20x30
> on paper other than "glossy or matte"?
>
> What I have are several photo TIFF's that have been "Painted" with
> PainterX.
>
> TIA
>
> --
> I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
> one fewer god than you do.
> When you understand why you reject all other gods,
> you will understand why I reject yours as well.
> Stephen F. Roberts
Almost anyone can do it on canvas. Walmart can do that on a blanket
-- talk about something that's not glossy paper !
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 10 2009 10:29 am
From: Allen
Pat wrote:
> On Mar 8, 1:10 pm, Ockham's Razor <Menc...@pdx.net> wrote:
>> Is there any photo printing service that can make prints of up to 20x30
>> on paper other than "glossy or matte"?
>>
>> What I have are several photo TIFF's that have been "Painted" with
>> PainterX.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> --
>> I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
>> one fewer god than you do.
>> When you understand why you reject all other gods,
>> you will understand why I reject yours as well.
>> Stephen F. Roberts
>
> Almost anyone can do it on canvas. Walmart can do that on a blanket
> -- talk about something that's not glossy paper !
The thought of a glossy blanket makes my skin crawl.
==============================================================================
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
