rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* New Lens Comparison: Nikon 50mm 1.4D vs. 50mm 1.4G - 9 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/63742782be0e0f38?hl=en
* Beware the Brides of March - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f17645b0d016d152?hl=en
* Factory Promotions Jordan Shoes Free Shipping Paypal payment at www.agogoing.
com Options - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/82b39f1e561f0e03?hl=en
* This news will irate the pro-DSLR and Canon enthusiasts ! - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ebc9d6f22f3d23fa?hl=en
* Brainstorm session for commercial photographers - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d069aa1e06a38f65?hl=en
* Old fashioned battery tester - 7 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aef7f5267962d1e4?hl=en
* Camera enthusiasts - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ffe47c9820c0c1b3?hl=en
* Overexposure Fuji F610 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3b85815d67815ebf?hl=en
* OT: Ping: Stormin Mormon - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9db86ee5d2dc1c69?hl=en
* High pixels, low DPI ?? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/46e4c2dfc3c3b69a?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Lens Comparison: Nikon 50mm 1.4D vs. 50mm 1.4G
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/63742782be0e0f38?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 12:01 am
From: Get lost
On Mar 18, 11:42 pm, M-M <nospam....@ny.more> wrote:
> I had the opportunity to have in my possession both of these lenses- the
> older 50mm 1.4D and the new 50mm 1.4G.
>
> I took sample photos with both, as carefully controlled as I could. I
> think the results were quite surprising but remarkably consistent.
>
> I know which one is going back, for sure. The photos tell the story:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/1.4dg.html
>
> --
> m-mhttp://www.mhmyers.com
G seems a little contrast challenged compared to the D, but overall
it's the better lens.
Thanks for the comparison.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 12:33 am
From: Bruce
M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:
>I had the opportunity to have in my possession both of these lenses- the
>older 50mm 1.4D and the new 50mm 1.4G.
>
>I took sample photos with both, as carefully controlled as I could. I
>think the results were quite surprising but remarkably consistent.
>
>I know which one is going back, for sure. The photos tell the story:
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/1.4dg.html
An interesting test, thanks for posting.
How were the lenses focused? You have to be careful to ensure that you
focus manually, and extremely accurately, to make any comparison between
the optics a useful one. Then, you can do a second test, one of the
differences between the focusing systems.
The 100% crop images of "kitchen timer on/off" suggest the G lens gives
a less sharp image. But is it the optics, or is it an autofocus
problem? Only you can now that, and you either choose not to tell us,
or you don't know. If both shots were taken with autofocus, we will
never know.
Also, in the shots of the white vase, those taken at f/4 appear to show
an opposite conclusion to the one you have drawn about the G lens's iris
diaphragm. The differences in saturation appear to be differences in
exposure. Once again, were these shots manually focused?
Once again,if both shots were taken with autofocus, we will never know
whether any differences are down to the different optics, or an error in
the autofocus system.
That's the problem with tests that are not properly controlled.
Interesting all the same, and thanks for posting. I won't be
downgrading my 50mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor to a G lens anytime soon, and the
nasty plastic D lens with its excessive backlash in the focusing
mechanism never attracted me either. ;-)
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 3:35 am
From: M-M
In article <jgs3s4p0583509s0uhe8ktbcn55vn4er9d@4ax.com>,
Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
> M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:
>
> >I had the opportunity to have in my possession both of these lenses- the
> >older 50mm 1.4D and the new 50mm 1.4G.
> >
> >I took sample photos with both, as carefully controlled as I could. I
> >think the results were quite surprising but remarkably consistent.
> >
> >I know which one is going back, for sure. The photos tell the story:
> >
> >http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/1.4dg.html
>
>
> An interesting test, thanks for posting.
>
> How were the lenses focused? You have to be careful to ensure that you
> focus manually, and extremely accurately, to make any comparison between
> the optics a useful one.
I used aperture priority single area autofocus for all shots, aiming the
focus point at the same spot for all comparisons- I felt that was the
best way to ensure uniformity. Sometimes the G made a slight difference
in shutter speed exposing 1/3 stop longer.
--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 3:44 am
From: Bruce
M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:
>In article <jgs3s4p0583509s0uhe8ktbcn55vn4er9d@4ax.com>,
> Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:
>>
>> >I had the opportunity to have in my possession both of these lenses- the
>> >older 50mm 1.4D and the new 50mm 1.4G.
>> >
>> >I took sample photos with both, as carefully controlled as I could. I
>> >think the results were quite surprising but remarkably consistent.
>> >
>> >I know which one is going back, for sure. The photos tell the story:
>> >
>> >http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/1.4dg.html
>>
>>
>> An interesting test, thanks for posting.
>>
>> How were the lenses focused? You have to be careful to ensure that you
>> focus manually, and extremely accurately, to make any comparison between
>> the optics a useful one.
>
>I used aperture priority single area autofocus for all shots, aiming the
>focus point at the same spot for all comparisons- I felt that was the
>best way to ensure uniformity. Sometimes the G made a slight difference
>in shutter speed exposing 1/3 stop longer.
The only way to ensure uniformity is to use manual focusing and manual
exposure, applying the same shutter speed and aperture to both lenses.
Otherwise you are introducing variations in the autofocus and auto
exposure systems, which isn't what you are testing for.
Unfortunately, I don't think your tests tell us much, in spite of all
the effort you put in. Modern lenses such as the G lens are a nightmare
to bench test - which would otherwise have been a good route to take -
because of the difficulty of controlling the aperture. That makes it
all the more important to exercise control when testing on a camera.
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 4:39 am
From: M-M
In article <p384s4l3eopogpugq4iuv5dhu1noj82407@4ax.com>,
Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
> The only way to ensure uniformity is to use manual focusing and manual
> exposure, applying the same shutter speed and aperture to both lenses.
> Otherwise you are introducing variations in the autofocus and auto
> exposure systems, which isn't what you are testing for.
The tests were designed to show the differences in the lenses, and if
one lens wanted to up the exposure a bit for the same lighting
conditions, this is important. I wasn't just testing the glass which is
what your suggestions would do. I was testing the lens systems and how
they react to similar conditions.
I found the G quite often but consistently exposed about 1/3 stop
longer. You would never know this if I used manual exposure settings.
As for manual focusing, I aimed the focus point at the exact same spot
for each comparison shot- again this is a further test of a lens system
and how it works. The two models use different focusing motors- how
could I ignore this when comparing lenses?
--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 7:19 am
From: John McWilliams
M-M wrote:
> In article <p384s4l3eopogpugq4iuv5dhu1noj82407@4ax.com>,
> Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> The only way to ensure uniformity is to use manual focusing and manual
>> exposure, applying the same shutter speed and aperture to both lenses.
>> Otherwise you are introducing variations in the autofocus and auto
>> exposure systems, which isn't what you are testing for.
>
>
> The tests were designed to show the differences in the lenses, and if
> one lens wanted to up the exposure a bit for the same lighting
> conditions, this is important. I wasn't just testing the glass which is
> what your suggestions would do. I was testing the lens systems and how
> they react to similar conditions.
>
> I found the G quite often but consistently exposed about 1/3 stop
> longer. You would never know this if I used manual exposure settings.
But that part is the sensor and the camera's electronics reacting to the
perceived light strength to whatever formula that was selected (spot,
average, weighted ave, etc.) You'd expect differently internally
configured lenses to give different amounts of light to the sensor.
--
john mcwilliams
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 2:18 pm
From: Bruce
M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:
>In article <p384s4l3eopogpugq4iuv5dhu1noj82407@4ax.com>,
> Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> The only way to ensure uniformity is to use manual focusing and manual
>> exposure, applying the same shutter speed and aperture to both lenses.
>> Otherwise you are introducing variations in the autofocus and auto
>> exposure systems, which isn't what you are testing for.
>
>
>The tests were designed to show the differences in the lenses, and if
>one lens wanted to up the exposure a bit for the same lighting
>conditions, this is important. I wasn't just testing the glass which is
>what your suggestions would do. I was testing the lens systems and how
>they react to similar conditions.
>
>I found the G quite often but consistently exposed about 1/3 stop
>longer. You would never know this if I used manual exposure settings.
>
>As for manual focusing, I aimed the focus point at the exact same spot
>for each comparison shot- again this is a further test of a lens system
>and how it works. The two models use different focusing motors- how
>could I ignore this when comparing lenses?
That depends whether you are testing the optics, the autofocus
mechanisms, or the auto exposure system. You have tried to test all
three at the same time; consequently the results tell us almost nothing
about the optics.
Forgive me, but it is the optics that matter above all. If the AF or AE
systems don't work properly, all you are doing is identifying faults in
those systems. Yet the optics make the images.
If you routinely use AF and/or AE, it is perfectly legitimate to test
those. But don't try to test two or three things together. The
objective of a properly controlled test is to isolate each factor as far
as practicable and test for it on its own without confusing it with any
other factors.
So is the G lens sharper than the D lens? We don't know, because you
used autofocus. Which has the higher saturation? We don't know,
because you used auto exposure.
Which lens should you send back? We don't know that either. You think
you do, but you don't, because any conclusions that you draw from this
uncontrolled test will be fundamentally unreliable.
Personally, I wouldn't bother with either of them. But that's because I
know that even the best autofocus systems cannot always be trusted, even
in optimal conditions.
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 2:25 pm
From: Pboud
Bruce wrote:
>
>
> That depends whether you are testing the optics, the autofocus
> mechanisms, or the auto exposure system. You have tried to test all
> three at the same time; consequently the results tell us almost nothing
> about the optics.
>
> Forgive me, but it is the optics that matter above all. If the AF or AE
> systems don't work properly, all you are doing is identifying faults in
> those systems. Yet the optics make the images.
>
> If you routinely use AF and/or AE, it is perfectly legitimate to test
> those. But don't try to test two or three things together. The
> objective of a properly controlled test is to isolate each factor as far
> as practicable and test for it on its own without confusing it with any
> other factors.
>
> So is the G lens sharper than the D lens? We don't know, because you
> used autofocus. Which has the higher saturation? We don't know,
> because you used auto exposure.
>
> Which lens should you send back? We don't know that either. You think
> you do, but you don't, because any conclusions that you draw from this
> uncontrolled test will be fundamentally unreliable.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't bother with either of them. But that's because I
> know that even the best autofocus systems cannot always be trusted, even
> in optimal conditions.
>
Better yet, he could create a hermetic room, with laser controlled
environmental monitors and do a full disassemble of the lenses to
independently test each element..
It's the only way to be sure.
P.
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 4:16 pm
From: Bruce
Pboud <pboud_01NOSPAMAT@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Better yet, he could create a hermetic room, with laser controlled
>environmental monitors and do a full disassemble of the lenses to
>independently test each element..
>
>It's the only way to be sure.
Now you're just being silly. I was merely pointing out that with so
many variables, and no attempt to control them, the comparison was
meaningless.
I do admire the OP for trying, though. At least he was sufficiently
interested to make the effort. Most people buy equipment and make no
attempt to test it, and instead make claims for its performance based on
some magazine review they read.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Beware the Brides of March
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f17645b0d016d152?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 12:17 am
From: Twibil
On Mar 18, 4:16 pm, "bowser" <w...@tisgoing.on> wrote:
> I wonder what they were wondering about while drunk?
Where the next drink was coming from.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Factory Promotions Jordan Shoes Free Shipping Paypal payment at www.
agogoing.com Options
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/82b39f1e561f0e03?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 2:34 am
From: cheap rooms3
we have set up long-term and closed cooperation with many
manufacturers and factories. TOP & BEST quality of products, high
reputation, excellent services and professionalism are those that we
used compete with others. We sincerely wish to cooperate with you and
to make mutual benefit! We will be your first choice of suppliers for
TOP quality products!
Best Service, Highest Quality, Competitive price, Timely delivery
as
its philosophy,
we are to fully cooperate on the basis of equality and mutual benefit
with business partners from all over the world.
We could supply mixed colors and sizes shoes for you. Your
satisfaction is our final target.
Website:www.agogoing.com
E-mail :agogoing@hotmail.com
MSN :agogoing@hotmail.com
<sell Nike Shoes, Jordan 1-23, Air Jordan, AF1, DUNK, Air max series
etc. Most of them are in stock and can be supplied surely on time. All
these shoes are packed with original-boxes and cards >
==============================================================================
TOPIC: This news will irate the pro-DSLR and Canon enthusiasts !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ebc9d6f22f3d23fa?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 3:41 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <pj7wl.24195$yr3.3967@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
> Sownds like sumwon don't speke no good Inglish.
Änd hu cärs äbaut yor fany länguag =:p
By the way, they are not even writing in Spanish - it's Catalan. Long
live free Catalunia.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 7:24 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dZydnd_U5_ctsFzUnZ2dnUVZ8tqWnZ2d@bt.com...
> Irate is a verb now?
Are sure it wasn't iRat, an alternative Apple mouse
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Brainstorm session for commercial photographers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d069aa1e06a38f65?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 4:46 am
From: "Focus"
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:lg63s4ltbsunkrk3ide8qluuf5ajaaicov@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:52:19 -0000, "Steve Hanson" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> : "Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
> : news:t7adnQvdRPLUySPUnZ2dnUVZ8qOWnZ2d@novis.pt...
> :
> : > Most of the photographers here are far away from each other,
> geographical
> : > (I live in Portugal, for example) so we won't "bite" each other by
> sharing
> : > some idea's. I was thinking how to extend my / our business(es).
> : > One thing I came up with, is to make a small studio / booth at my
> local
> : > shopping mall and make free pictures. After all, it doesn't cost that
> much
> : > to make and print pictures. After people have their picture taken,
> they
> : > can come back another day to pick up the photo. I was thinking of
> giving
> : > my business card to them, along with the picture, but maybe it's
> better to
> : > make a watermark in the picture with my business card.
> : > As an option, I (you) could offer to make more picture at a reasonable
> : > price, without the watermark ;-)
> : >
> : > Now there's the practical side of the whole thing and the challenges
> : > coming with it:
> : >
> : > 1. how do you make sure you have the right photo number and give it to
> the
> : > people, so thay can pick up the photo easily?
> : >
> : > 2. I was thinking of making the pictures with the computer attached
> : > (remote controlled), so you can already have control over the name of
> the
> : > file. But this seems unpractical, because if you need to make more
> : > pictures for one person, you want to hold the camera in your hands. I
> : > don't think (but I'm not sure) that you can transfer the photo's
> : > automatically thru a USB cable (Nikon CCP in my case).
> : >
> : > 3. how and with what software can you make an extended watermark, with
> : > your name and phone number, for example? PS comes to mind, but I never
> : > used that feature. Batch seems logical.
> : >
> : > 4. because the printed photo's have no information and you're probably
> : > dealing with a lot (I expect a few hundred) of people, how do you set
> up
> : > an easy system, to retrieve the photo for each person?
> : >
> : > 5. anybody have different idea's or aditions, welcome!
> :
> : I never watched it (and don't plan to), because I despise the program,
> but
> : you never know, you may get some ideas here where the teams had to set
> up
> : their own photography business at a busy shopping centre for 'The
> : Apprentice' show:
> :
> : 1 of 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toXpMYazEBA
> :
> : Personally, if I was going to print the photos later I think I would
> look at
> : using the date/time in the exif to organise and make a note of the name,
> : addresses, etc of who you were photographing on that date and time.
> But, if
> : I was you I would consider taking the photos, printing them and selling
> them
> : on the day with a quick turn around time. I have also seen people using
> : raffle tickets, where they hand out a numbered ticket to people.
> :
> : Of course, there's always the street instant photos route:
> : http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzofia/258938865/sizes/l/
> : http://www.flickr.com/photos/bsii/98514355/sizes/l/
> :
> : BTW, if you are in Portugal, why are you on EST time zone, as opposed to
> : UTC/GMT?
>
> Your newsreader may be lying to you. Mine shows him as being on GMT:
>
>> From: "Focus" <dont@mail.me>
>> Newsgroups:
>> aus.photo,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,uk.rec.photo.misc
>> Subject: Brainstorm session for commercial photographers
>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:29:42 -0000
>
> Bob
You're correct.
I did have a good laugh about the street photographers, LOL. It's not
exactly what I had in mind.
The Aprentice was quite amusing and interesting.
--
---
Focus
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Old fashioned battery tester
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aef7f5267962d1e4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 5:42 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"
My Dad showed me how to do this, when I was a boy. Take a
flash light bulb (PR-4 is good, the old screw in 112 is
better, more close to the proper voltage). Then, take about
six or seven inch long piece of #10 or #12 solid wire. Wrap
one end of the wire around the bulb. Curve the rest of the
wire, so it looks like a letter C, or G.
Touch one end of the battery to the lead spot, on the bulb.
Touch the other end of the wire to the other end of the
battery. If the bulb lights, the battery is OK. Works for
AAAA through D cells. Have to bend the wire a bit, for
different sizes.
After using this for a while, you can also roughly guess the
battery state. New, used, weak, dead. By how bright the
light is. If using a PR-4 bulb, you can also test 3 volt
lithium photo batteries.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 7:14 am
From: McTavish
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> My Dad showed me how to do this, when I was a boy. Take a
> flash light bulb (PR-4 is good, the old screw in 112 is
> better, more close to the proper voltage). Then, take about
> six or seven inch long piece of #10 or #12 solid wire. Wrap
> one end of the wire around the bulb. Curve the rest of the
> wire, so it looks like a letter C, or G.
>
> Touch one end of the battery to the lead spot, on the bulb.
> Touch the other end of the wire to the other end of the
> battery. If the bulb lights, the battery is OK. Works for
> AAAA through D cells. Have to bend the wire a bit, for
> different sizes.
>
> After using this for a while, you can also roughly guess the
> battery state. New, used, weak, dead. By how bright the
> light is. If using a PR-4 bulb, you can also test 3 volt
> lithium photo batteries.
>
No shit Sherlock. You are really telling me that if you put a bulb
across a battery and it lights that the battery is ok? That's amazing.
Your daddy was some guy!
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 7:23 am
From: "Just Me"
"McTavish" <jock723andgoing@tiscali.net> wrote in message
news:49c2535e$0$3338$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org...
> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> My Dad showed me how to do this, when I was a boy. Take a flash light
>> bulb (PR-4 is good, the old screw in 112 is better, more close to the
>> proper voltage). Then, take about six or seven inch long piece of #10 or
>> #12 solid wire. Wrap one end of the wire around the bulb. Curve the rest
>> of the wire, so it looks like a letter C, or G.
>>
>> Touch one end of the battery to the lead spot, on the bulb. Touch the
>> other end of the wire to the other end of the battery. If the bulb
>> lights, the battery is OK. Works for AAAA through D cells. Have to bend
>> the wire a bit, for different sizes.
>>
>> After using this for a while, you can also roughly guess the battery
>> state. New, used, weak, dead. By how bright the light is. If using a PR-4
>> bulb, you can also test 3 volt lithium photo batteries.
>>
>
> No shit Sherlock. You are really telling me that if you put a bulb across
> a battery and it lights that the battery is ok? That's amazing. Your daddy
> was some guy!
>
Go on line and buy a Press #22 flashbulb, repeat the method cited!
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 8:28 am
From: Bob Larter
Just Me wrote:
> "McTavish" <jock723andgoing@tiscali.net> wrote in message
> news:49c2535e$0$3338$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org...
>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>> My Dad showed me how to do this, when I was a boy. Take a flash light
>>> bulb (PR-4 is good, the old screw in 112 is better, more close to the
>>> proper voltage). Then, take about six or seven inch long piece of #10 or
>>> #12 solid wire. Wrap one end of the wire around the bulb. Curve the rest
>>> of the wire, so it looks like a letter C, or G.
>>>
>>> Touch one end of the battery to the lead spot, on the bulb. Touch the
>>> other end of the wire to the other end of the battery. If the bulb
>>> lights, the battery is OK. Works for AAAA through D cells. Have to bend
>>> the wire a bit, for different sizes.
>>>
>>> After using this for a while, you can also roughly guess the battery
>>> state. New, used, weak, dead. By how bright the light is. If using a PR-4
>>> bulb, you can also test 3 volt lithium photo batteries.
>>>
>> No shit Sherlock. You are really telling me that if you put a bulb across
>> a battery and it lights that the battery is ok? That's amazing. Your daddy
>> was some guy!
>>
> Go on line and buy a Press #22 flashbulb, repeat the method cited!
<heh> And report back after your eyes start working again.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 8:41 am
From: "Just Me"
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49c26498$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Just Me wrote:
>> "McTavish" <jock723andgoing@tiscali.net> wrote in message
>> news:49c2535e$0$3338$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org...
>>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>>> My Dad showed me how to do this, when I was a boy. Take a flash light
>>>> bulb (PR-4 is good, the old screw in 112 is better, more close to the
>>>> proper voltage). Then, take about six or seven inch long piece of #10
>>>> or #12 solid wire. Wrap one end of the wire around the bulb. Curve the
>>>> rest of the wire, so it looks like a letter C, or G.
>>>>
>>>> Touch one end of the battery to the lead spot, on the bulb. Touch the
>>>> other end of the wire to the other end of the battery. If the bulb
>>>> lights, the battery is OK. Works for AAAA through D cells. Have to bend
>>>> the wire a bit, for different sizes.
>>>>
>>>> After using this for a while, you can also roughly guess the battery
>>>> state. New, used, weak, dead. By how bright the light is. If using a
>>>> PR-4 bulb, you can also test 3 volt lithium photo batteries.
>>>>
>>> No shit Sherlock. You are really telling me that if you put a bulb
>>> across a battery and it lights that the battery is ok? That's amazing.
>>> Your daddy was some guy!
>>>
>> Go on line and buy a Press #22 flashbulb, repeat the method cited!
>
> <heh> And report back after your eyes start working again.
>
Was an old party gag, to replace the bathroom lightbulb with a #22 loads of
fun, especially if the washroom had multiple bulbs ;)
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 2:20 pm
From: snapper@mailinator.com
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:42:54 -0400, "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My Dad showed me how to do this, when I was a boy. Take a
> flash light bulb (PR-4 is good, the old screw in 112 is
> better, more close to the proper voltage). Then, take about
> six or seven inch long piece of #10 or #12 solid wire. Wrap
> one end of the wire around the bulb. Curve the rest of the
> wire, so it looks like a letter C, or G.
>
> Touch one end of the battery to the lead spot, on the bulb.
> Touch the other end of the wire to the other end of the
> battery. If the bulb lights, the battery is OK. Works for
> AAAA through D cells. Have to bend the wire a bit, for
> different sizes.
>
> After using this for a while, you can also roughly guess the
> battery state. New, used, weak, dead. By how bright the
> light is. If using a PR-4 bulb, you can also test 3 volt
> lithium photo batteries.
Old fashioned light meter:-
Open your eyes, if you can see it is light. If you can't see it is dark.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 3:17 pm
From: "Charles"
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gptep9$1rl$1@news.motzarella.org...
> My Dad showed me how to do this, when I was a boy. Take a
> flash light bulb (PR-4 is good, the old screw in 112 is
> better, more close to the proper voltage). Then, take about
> six or seven inch long piece of #10 or #12 solid wire. Wrap
> one end of the wire around the bulb. Curve the rest of the
> wire, so it looks like a letter C, or G.
>
> Touch one end of the battery to the lead spot, on the bulb.
> Touch the other end of the wire to the other end of the
> battery. If the bulb lights, the battery is OK. Works for
> AAAA through D cells. Have to bend the wire a bit, for
> different sizes.
>
> After using this for a while, you can also roughly guess the
> battery state. New, used, weak, dead. By how bright the
> light is. If using a PR-4 bulb, you can also test 3 volt
> lithium photo batteries.
Hardly scientific ... guess by how bright the light is?
A load test must also include a voltmeter and some knowledge to be a real
test.
But, your Dad certainly understood an important fact: A cell or battery
must be loaded to evaluate its condition.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Camera enthusiasts
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ffe47c9820c0c1b3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 6:11 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"
So, which one would you rather have shooting at you?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-2D3344.18083814032009@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
I think it is like gun fondlers. They masturbate their
guns and
worship the Second Amendment. But they do not know how to
use them.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Overexposure Fuji F610
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3b85815d67815ebf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 7:23 am
From: ransley
On Mar 18, 11:10 am, Me Indoors <mid...@tiscali.net> wrote:
> ransley wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 8:26 am, Me Indoors <mid...@tiscali.net> wrote:
> >> Hi, I have an elderly Fuji F610.
>
> >> If I take a flash photo or any photo' indoors it is fine but if I try to
> >> use it in sunlight the picture is 'flooded' and horribly overexposed.
> >> This happens on manual or auto. There are no 'error messages'. Both the
> >> lcd and the actual photo' are flooded.
>
> >> I have tried a full factory reset with no luck.
>
> >> Is the camera knackered or is there a setting somewhere that I have
> >> messed up? The indoor photos' and flash photos' are absolutely fine.
>
> >> TIA - Ian
>
> > Was it ok before. Adjust EV exposure compensation, if that doesnt work
> > and settings are normal it could be the camera. They sell for $9.95
> > now
>
> Thanks. I'll put it in the bin. It was only a spare camera I kept in the
> car.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would not throw it away, set EV full negative, see if its set to iso
100 when outside shooting, and check what settings its shooting at,
iso, Speed and Aperature. It might be something overlooked or that can
be compensated for
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Ping: Stormin Mormon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9db86ee5d2dc1c69?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 8:33 am
From: Pat
Hey, are you really a Mormon? If so, I have a question for you.
I like drinking Postum on occasion. Seems like they've discontinued
it for a while and you can't buy it any more except for outlandish
prices on Ebay.
Some of the articles said that it was a blow to the Mormon community
because it was the main replacement drink for coffee. Okay, that's a
non-Mormon-centric view to call it a "replacement" but I could explain
it otherwise so I'll apologize in advance.
Anyway, IIRC you're somewhere outside of Rochester.
Do you know of any decent substitutes that can be obtained "locally".
I'm way down in the Southern Tier so we don't have a lot of options
for an on-the-ground store. The Wegman's in Hornell had something but
they were out (according to the guy who works in the department, the
are perpetually out). I haven't been to Tops lately but I think they
are unlikely to have anything. Are they are other good options that
you know of?
Of course my other option is to mail order a few different drinks and
try them.
Just wondering what your thoughts were.
Pat.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: High pixels, low DPI ??
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/46e4c2dfc3c3b69a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 8:51 am
From: canon.user
'Peabody' wrote this:
>Bob Williams says...
>
> > You cannot SEND images at 200dpi. As others have pointed
> > out, that is a printing term and is controlled by the
> > printer itself.
>
> > If you are using PhotoShop to edit your pictures, I'd
> > suggest that you use the CROP TOOL to crop the picture
> > to the size it will appear in your photo directory, say
> > 3" x 4". Also set the Crop Tool's resolution to 220 ppi.
> > The image you get will print out at exactly 3x4 @ 220
> > ppi and 220 dpi I would check with the publisher about
> > the 220 dpi requirement because that is very modest
> > resolution for a professional printer. That
> > said,however, 220dpi should be satisfactory for a 3 x 4
> > or smaller picture
>
>Sorry, but I need to ask a total newb question. The very
>simple photo editors I've used in the distant past (such as
>LView) only dealt with the size of the pictures in H/V
>pixels, such as 640x480. Is the "resolution" of the picture
>in terms of pixels per inch actually specified in the jpeg
>itself by better editors? Would that value have any effect
>on how a picture would be displayed on a monitor (as opposed
>to being printed)?
Resolution usually refers to the H/V pixel size of an image.
PC monitors and digital cameras use this term too.
Thus, an image of 640hx480v will display on your monitor in full
screen using an image viewer like Irfanview, if your monitor
resolution is also set to 640hx480v. If you send that same image
to a friend who uses a higher resolution on his monitor, the image
will not fill the screen.
PPI (or dpi) defines how many of those pixels will be printed
per inch when you print it. The higher the ppi, the smaller the
printed output will be for the same size image.
==============================================================================
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
Noeleen