rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7694b9e85e8630b7?hl=en
* SD capacity of Coolpix L18? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/092a1d547736f68e?hl=en
* OT: Ping: Stormin Mormon - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9db86ee5d2dc1c69?hl=en
* In Full Uniform - 7 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/444ffc141914cc47?hl=en
* Old fashioned battery tester - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aef7f5267962d1e4?hl=en
* Olympus admits a try at "pro" would gut their 4/3rds system - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8ef3252b6bf18872?hl=en
* Help with date problem. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e42d8c9b4c58396f?hl=en
* Sandisk ESP or 30mb/sec - Which one is faster? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6732cd3c50af4827?hl=en
* paypal wholesale fashion sport shoes - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b16ce1716a7c4519?hl=en
* Air Jordans 8 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com ) - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8b6ab726206ad30d?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7694b9e85e8630b7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 9:04 am
From: Kennedy McEwen
In article <RzGwl.3918$Lr6.3717@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> Why don't they just say they are going to focus on the high volume
>>consumer market instead of dressing it up as a megapixel war?
>> The fact is that when Olympus chose to use only the 4/3 format they
>>locked themselves into a megapixel limit which was lower than other
>>manufacturers and eventually they would not be able to compete. I
>>suspect that day has arrived much sooner than Olympus expected, even
>>though many of us were predicting it as soon as 4/3 launched.
>> Nikon did the same when they announced that they did not foresee any
>>requirement for anything larger and APS-C, and full 35mm format was
>>not in their development plans. That caused enough Nikon users to
>>switch to Canon FF solutions that a new management team at Nikon
>>recanted and overturned that policy. Now the Nikon-Canon performance
>>battle has reached parity, if not turned.
>
>The difference was that Nikon was never serious when they said they
>would not be going full frame, they were just putting on a brave face
>because they had no full frame sensor. As soon as they had a full-frame
>sensor they changed their story.
I really don't think they ever considered that they would lose such a
large market share as a result of the APS-C only policy. FF only came
back onto the roadmap once the senior management changed and a decision
was made to restore Nikon to their former position.
> I think Olympus is very serious about sticking with 4:3.
I agree, but it only takes a few execs to fall on their swords for that
commitment to change.
> They have such a tiny market share that it's too late for them to try
>to compete in the amateur or professional market. The other problem
>they have is lenses, since Olympus has alway lagged Nikon and Canon at
>the high end, even when they were making 35mm cameras.
>
Its never too late - apart from personal pride of execs and CEOs. People
said it was too late for another player when the OM series appeared in
1973. Nikon, Canon, Pentax were market leaders at the time and Olympus
dared to challenge their cartel having only a heritage of half frames
(the FTL wasn't an Olympus design) and glass.
Olympus don't have a problem with lenses at all. Many of the OM series
lenses still challenge and, in some cases, exceed the capabilities of
equivalents from Nikon and, especially, Canon. Buy, borrow or steal a
convertor that lets you put Oly glass on a Canon full frame body and you
will regret that Olympus ever bought into the 4:3 format.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 10:55 am
From: Alan Browne
rpd wrote:
> Wired http://is.gd/mWiI/12MPenough
>
> In an interview at the PMA (Photo Marketing Association)
> show in Las Vegas, Olympus SLR boss Akira Watanabe
> confirmed what we have known for a long time: That more
> pixels doesn't mean better pictures. Speaking to ZDNet,
> Watanabe said that "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough
> for covering most applications most customers need. We have
> no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System."
>
> This is fantastic news. It has been the unofficial line at
Oly locked themselves into the 4/3 sized sensor with its smallish (less
than even APS-C) sensor and cannot hope to achieve much more than about
12 Mpix without noise rising horribly even at moderate ISO. They are
forced to say 12 is enough.
I bet Pentax have a FF sensor within a couple years (bought from Sony,
no doubt).
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 11:11 am
From: SMS
Alan Browne wrote:
> Oly locked themselves into the 4/3 sized sensor with its smallish (less
> than even APS-C) sensor and cannot hope to achieve much more than about
> 12 Mpix without noise rising horribly even at moderate ISO. They are
> forced to say 12 is enough.
Perhaps they can make enough money catering to those that would
otherwise buy P&S or ZLRs and can write off those that want more than
snapshots.
They'll just have to seriously cut prices because why would anyone limit
themselves in terms of upgrades when they don't have to (even though
they'll likely never upgrade to full frame anyway).
4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS film.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 11:26 am
From: Alan Browne
SMS wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Oly locked themselves into the 4/3 sized sensor with its smallish
>> (less than even APS-C) sensor and cannot hope to achieve much more
>> than about 12 Mpix without noise rising horribly even at moderate
>> ISO. They are forced to say 12 is enough.
>
> Perhaps they can make enough money catering to those that would
> otherwise buy P&S or ZLRs and can write off those that want more than
> snapshots.
>
> They'll just have to seriously cut prices because why would anyone limit
> themselves in terms of upgrades when they don't have to (even though
> they'll likely never upgrade to full frame anyway).
>
> 4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS film.
I wouldn't go that far, and the actual 'victory' of 4/3 may turn out to
be micro 4/3. Still, from the start it seemed like too radical a
departure when you consign your lens owners to a new mount. Yeah, they
can use adaptors but that's a bit like kissing your sister. And then
round 2: 4/3 lens owners will be using adaptors to adapt those lenses to
micro 4/3 bodies...
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 4:22 pm
From: Doug McDonald
Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> 4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS film.
>
APS film was sesigned to answer a clear, specific, question:
"Just how crappy can we make our product, at this instant in time,
and still sell at a profit?"
Remember the itsy bitsy cartridge film that preceeded APS?
Same question. And little square negatives?
Doug McDonald
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 5:24 pm
From: Alfred Molon
In article <4%Qwl.14767$W06.12508@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
> 4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS film.
It matters to all those who want to have a smaller camera with a large
sensor and excellent lenses (due to the telecentric design).
Smaller sensors allow that. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge and
heavy full-frame DSLR. Volume and weight of lenses go up with the cube
of the (linear) sensor size.
--
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
==============================================================================
TOPIC: SD capacity of Coolpix L18?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/092a1d547736f68e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 10:37 am
From: geronimo
I bought a used Nikon Coolpix L18. No manual included. Nikon would not
let me D/L the manual becasue I have not registered it with Nikon. I
wasnt to purchase another SD card or it, (has a 2GB one now) but don't
know if it can utilize a SDHC 4 or 8 gb card. What's the max?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 10:46 am
From: Bert Hyman
In news:1u02s4tuh47eieds6n35aelngtk6o88t6f@4ax.com geronimo
<Jamesw@grandecom.net> wrote:
> I bought a used Nikon Coolpix L18. No manual included. Nikon would not
> let me D/L the manual becasue I have not registered it with Nikon. I
> wasnt to purchase another SD card or it, (has a 2GB one now) but don't
> know if it can utilize a SDHC 4 or 8 gb card. What's the max?
>
http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15996
You can easily register and download a printable copy if you really need
one, or you can download a read-only, not-printable copy here:
http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/noprint/L18_L16_ennoprint.pdf
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 11:06 am
From: me@mine.net
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:37:14 -0600, in rec.photo.digital geronimo
<Jamesw@grandecom.net> wrote:
>I bought a used Nikon Coolpix L18. No manual included. Nikon would not
>let me D/L the manual becasue I have not registered it with Nikon. I
>wasnt to purchase another SD card or it, (has a 2GB one now) but don't
>know if it can utilize a SDHC 4 or 8 gb card. What's the max?
From the Nikon USA tech support knowledge base comes this list of
"approved cards"
http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14518
This is not to say others might not work.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Ping: Stormin Mormon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9db86ee5d2dc1c69?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 11:17 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-03-19 08:33:22 -0700, Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us> said:
> 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.
Postum will probably not come back. Few, even among us 'Mormons' (we
prefer the term Latter-day Saints, or Saints) ever drank it. Seventh
Day Adventists also drank it. Hot chocolate and herbal 'teas' were
always more popular and still are. Personally, I hate the stuff.
You can make your own Postum. A recipe from Mother Earth News calls for
you to combine six cups of cracked wheat with a cup of milk, a half cup
of molasses, and a teaspoon of salt. Spread it thinly on a cookie sheet
and bake until brown in a 300º oven. Be careful not to let it burn.
Turn the heat off and leave it in the oven to dry to a crisp. Grind it
up in a coffee mill, store in sealed jars, and perk or drip like
regular coffee.
You can get cracked wheat from health food stores. Or you can use a
mixture of whole wheat flour and bran.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 12:53 pm
From: "Frank ess"
C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2009-03-19 08:33:22 -0700, Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us>
> said:
>> 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.
>
> Postum will probably not come back. Few, even among us 'Mormons' (we
> prefer the term Latter-day Saints, or Saints) ever drank it. Seventh
> Day Adventists also drank it. Hot chocolate and herbal 'teas' were
> always more popular and still are. Personally, I hate the stuff.
>
> You can make your own Postum. A recipe from Mother Earth News calls
> for you to combine six cups of cracked wheat with a cup of milk, a
> half cup of molasses, and a teaspoon of salt. Spread it thinly on a
> cookie sheet and bake until brown in a 300º oven. Be careful not to
> let it burn. Turn the heat off and leave it in the oven to dry to a
> crisp. Grind it up in a coffee mill, store in sealed jars, and perk
> or drip like regular coffee.
>
> You can get cracked wheat from health food stores. Or you can use a
> mixture of whole wheat flour and bran.
That's a nice piece of information for Postum users.
Everyone in my extended (is that a necessary modifier?) LDS family
drank Postum and Dr Pepper in the middle-late 1940s, Layton, Utah and
thereabouts. What I remember learning is that they were the drinks
that had no caffeine in them. Now I have to wonder if there was some
detheobrominated hot chocolate. Seems to me chocolate (Spanish, from
Nahuatl xocolatl : xococ, bitter + atl, water.) has a significant
caffeine-like effect due to its theobromine component. Each is a
stimulant; is one more bannable than another?
--
Frank ess
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 4:54 pm
From: "Stormin Mormon"
Just for fun, I tried a Froogle search. No postum (modern
manufacture) to be found. Lots of antiques.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:c5f8a5d9-7b06-4253-8b57-f76571cb79d5@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
thanks
==============================================================================
TOPIC: In Full Uniform
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/444ffc141914cc47?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 12:31 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Caesar Romano" <Spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:m9d7s4d2vs9llm1lvpeg7214g0o73vke3j@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:27:36 -0400, sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com wrote
> Re Re: In Full Uniform:
>
>> Software can read messages out loud. Blind does not mean without
>>sight, but rather with out enough sight to function normally without
>>assistance. I was winging that description, but I believe it is
>>close. Many people who are legally blind do have some limited sight
>>and can enjoy photography.
>
The last stats I "saw" indicated that about 90% of "blind" people actually
have some sight. In most countries, the term "legally blind" simply means
that the individual has 10% or less of normal vision -- either acuity or
field. Hence, somebody with 20 /200 vision or worse would be "legally
blind," and somebody who has less than a 20 degree field would also be
"legally blind."
Accordingly, somebody with 20 / 20 vision, but with a field of 20 degrees
would be legally blind, but could function almost normally as a
photographer.
In my case, my acuity is such that it can no longer be measured; I see only
shapes and shadows in very contrasty situations. My field is only about 3
or 4 degrees. So, the end result is that I can only see extremes of light
and shade, in only a very small area. I am able to make out some light and
dark areas in the LCD display of the XSi, by scanning across the display, so
I can actually do a bit of limited composition (or, at least, I'm
experimenting with composing images that way). But, my best shots come out
of situations where I am aware of the physical layout of my surroundings,
the size of my subject, and the arrangement / layout of background objects.
My experience with hyperfocal shoots in action settings, back when I had
vision, enables me to frame such shots and get some semi decent results.
The biggest obstacle I have in such settings is finding a way to get my
camera to focus on my subject. In a number of cases, I can use the
hyperfocal technique to good advantage, assuming I can set the lens to
hyperfocal. There are a couple of techniques I've discovered, but nothing
so consistent I can rely on it in all settings.
But, constant practice is yielding some improved results. I'm hoping to put
together a small portfolio of some of my better shots and post them on-line
soon.
Note, I am not so crazy as to assume I'll be able to function as a
professional photographer; I simply love the art, and I want to see if I
can find ways to capture good images with virtually no sight. That's why my
mantra is: "Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder; it's in the mind."
Take Care,
Dudley
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 1:04 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Caesar Romano" <Spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:7mv6s45nsis3m2p1638nf9mvutdk17d8np@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:59:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote Re In Full Uniform:
>
>>What do you think? How is the exposure? Bright enough? Too bright?
>
> I would say you need more exposure by about +2 ev. It looks like the
> snow is being placed in Zone-5 and IMO it needs to be in Zone-7.
>
> Just curious: With all due respect and sympathy for your handicap, how
> does a blind person frame a photo? For that matter, how do you read
> this NG?
As has been pointed out in other responses, most "blind" people have some
sight. It's not so much what you have, but what you DO with what you
have...
In my case, I use a specialized computer application to verbalize the text
on my computer screen. There are several such programs on the market,
including the "Narrator" which is built into most versions of Windows.
Regarding the composition of my shots, a lot depends on what I'm shooting,
where I'm shooting it, and what the conditions are like.
In situations where there is a lot of contrast, as in this shot of Mich, I
am able to make out a fuzzy grey blur on a white background. I can't make
out eyes and ears, nor even legs and tail, just an amorphous blob of grey
which I tried to center in the viewfinder. Keep in mind that I cannot make
out the whole viewfinder without scanning back and forth, as well as up and
down, in order to place the subject where I want.
Thus, I work the edges of the display. I scan my eyes in towards the center
until I start to see the grey area which is my subject. When the distance
from the edge is roughly the same, or at least in the proportions I think I
need in order to place the subject where I want it, I take the shot.
Also, keep in mind that the shot needs to be focused. So, as I am working
the edges to compose the shot, I press the AE button on the XSi and try to
focus the shot. This hasn't been all that accurate, so I'm thinking I'll
change to the quick focus method and try that for a while.
Unfortunately, this scenario isn't ideal for my particular condition, since
I have an "easier" time when I have a light subject on a dark background, as
in a spotlit subject at a concert. In such cases, the procedure is the
same, but I am able to perform the various steps quite a bit quicker, and
more accurately.
When I take a shot, what I "see" is in no way the actual image the viewer
"sees." But, I often argue that such is the case for all artistic objects.
It's just that the gap is wider between myself and my viewers. Hence, I
need to know more about my audience's expectations, and they need to know
about my approach. I try to avoid the term "limitations," since I don't
feel limited -- I just function somewhat differently.
Up until now, I have been mainly doing test shots. A few have turned out,
most have not. But, My ratio of keepers is slowly getting better.
The feedback I get from this group, and others like it, is INVALUABLE. The
"sympathy factor" is difficult to get past when asking for feedback in a
face to face situation, so I rarely get useful info from people I am closely
acquainted with, doubly so since most do not have the same level of
experience and ability as the shooters who post here.
Having said all that, I'd like to go back to something you wrote, ie. the
"zones."
You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7. I am unfamiliar
with the zone terminology. I take it there are only 7 zones, and each zone
would correspond to 1 stop. Thus, most digital shots would have a latitude
of 7 zones. Is that correct?
Thanks for the info,
Dudley
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 1:53 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
> the numbers seem to agree that the snow is rather blue/cyan.
>
Just had a thought, Mark, could the hue be from UV? And, if so, could that
be why the snow is going grey? Would Photoshop do a good job of removing
the hue? Or, would it be better to use a UV filter?
I wasn't using a UV filter for that shot, as I don't have a good one at the
moment. (Keep meaning to pick one up, just haven't gotten around to it.)
Perhaps, a polarizer would be a better choice?
While I live in Edmonton, in the midst of a lot of snow, I've never shot a
lot of pics in the white stuf, so definitely have a lot to learn in this
setting.
Take Care,
Dudley
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 3:18 pm
From: Mark Thomas
Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> the numbers seem to agree that the snow is rather blue/cyan.
>
> Just had a thought, Mark, could the hue be from UV?
I don't know enough about snow, reflectivity, etc, to answer that -
(somebody?) Certainly UV (and IR can cause problems with some colours.
But I would hope that the metering and white balancing would be
relatively immune from out of visible spectrum stuff.
> And, if so, could that
> be why the snow is going grey?
As above, I don't know for sure, but would doubt it - it's not an issue
that seems to get much publicity.. Specular highlights, or back/front
lighting are usually what throws metering systems, imo. (Or being left
in spot metering mode, but that wouldn't apply here - the problem is the
wrong way around.)
> Would Photoshop do a good job of removing
> the hue? Or, would it be better to use a UV filter?
Yes, Photoshop. But then I'm known for having an intense dislike for
putting on extra bits of glass.. With a shot like that, I would simply
white balance it to a greyish piece of snow (eg grey point eyedropper in
curves), and then watch the other tones - in your case, perhaps get
someone to watch what happens..
> Perhaps, a polarizer would be a better choice?
Polarizers are the one filter I *do* use a lot.. However, in this case
I don't think it would help - they aren't much use at all in grey
skies.. Best used for shooting in the sun around midday, where you want
deep blue skies, where you wish to control the contrast in a strongly
sunlit shot, and anything with (non-metallic) reflections, eg river and
coast scenes.
However.. you do have to rotate the polariser to get the best effect -
that may cause you some issues. You could put a little dot/bump on the
pola, and then use your knowledge of where the light is coming from...
Let me know if you go down this path and I can elaborate. I've had a
fair bit of practice with using them.
> While I live in Edmonton, in the midst of a lot of snow, I've never shot a
> lot of pics in the white stuf, so definitely have a lot to learn in this
> setting.
And hereabouts it's the reverse - a good snowfall here would probably
mean the end of the world was nigh... Shorts and t-shirt, even in winter..
cheers,
mt
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 3:26 pm
From: Caesar Romano
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:04:16 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote Re Re: In Full Uniform:
>You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7. I am unfamiliar
>with the zone terminology. I take it there are only 7 zones, and each zone
>would correspond to 1 stop. Thus, most digital shots would have a latitude
>of 7 zones. Is that correct?
>
>Thanks for the info,
>Dudley
Hello Dudley,
Here is some information about the "Zone" system for photographic
exposure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system
http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html
I learned it many years ago and find it most useful, particularly for
B&W images.
Best Regards,
C.R.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 4:52 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Caesar Romano" <Spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:hq58s4lbeu13idkeup10fc5vf3gfjtfspr@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:04:16 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote Re Re: In Full Uniform:
>
>>You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7. I am unfamiliar
>>with the zone terminology. I take it there are only 7 zones, and each
>>zone
>>would correspond to 1 stop. Thus, most digital shots would have a
>>latitude
>>of 7 zones. Is that correct?
>>
>>Thanks for the info,
>>Dudley
>
> Hello Dudley,
>
> Here is some information about the "Zone" system for photographic
> exposure
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system
> http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html
>
> I learned it many years ago and find it most useful, particularly for
> B&W images.
>
> Best Regards,
> C.R.
Thanks, Caesar, I'll check out the info.
Back when I could see better, I used an inexpensive, but fairly accurate,
light meter to supplement the built-in camera meter. Couple the metering
with film familiarity, and my exposures weren't too bad.
Since going digital, I've been struggling a bit with metering. Each camera
I've used seems to meter a bit differently from the others, so it's been
difficult to get a basic rule of thumb for exposures established.
The one thing I've got going for me is that I can sort of make out the
histograph of the XSi, so I can figure out whether a given image is shifted
one way or the other. In the case of this image, though, the histograph
wasn't much help since it was scrunched up on the right, with only a little
blip to the left indicating Mich's darker colours.
If there are any techies for Canon or Nikon reading this, it would be really
nice if an over-exposure beep could be incorporated into the firmware. I
think it would help sighted shooters, as well as us bats, since shooting in
bright light can often make the little blinker in the viewfinder nearly
unnoticeable.
Take Care,
Dudley
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 4:57 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Mark Thomas" <mark.thomas.7@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gq14od$i0r$1@reader.motzarella.org...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> the numbers seem to agree that the snow is rather blue/cyan.
>>
>> Just had a thought, Mark, could the hue be from UV?
> I don't know enough about snow, reflectivity, etc, to answer that -
> (somebody?) Certainly UV (and IR can cause problems with some colours.
> But I would hope that the metering and white balancing would be relatively
> immune from out of visible spectrum stuff.
>
>> And, if so, could that be why the snow is going grey?
> As above, I don't know for sure, but would doubt it - it's not an issue
> that seems to get much publicity.. Specular highlights, or back/front
> lighting are usually what throws metering systems, imo. (Or being left in
> spot metering mode, but that wouldn't apply here - the problem is the
> wrong way around.)
>
>> Would Photoshop do a good job of removing the hue? Or, would it be
>> better to use a UV filter?
>
> Yes, Photoshop. But then I'm known for having an intense dislike for
> putting on extra bits of glass.. With a shot like that, I would simply
> white balance it to a greyish piece of snow (eg grey point eyedropper in
> curves), and then watch the other tones - in your case, perhaps get
> someone to watch what happens..
>
>> Perhaps, a polarizer would be a better choice?
> Polarizers are the one filter I *do* use a lot.. However, in this case I
> don't think it would help - they aren't much use at all in grey skies..
> Best used for shooting in the sun around midday, where you want deep blue
> skies, where you wish to control the contrast in a strongly sunlit shot,
> and anything with (non-metallic) reflections, eg river and coast scenes.
>
> However.. you do have to rotate the polariser to get the best effect -
> that may cause you some issues. You could put a little dot/bump on the
> pola, and then use your knowledge of where the light is coming from... Let
> me know if you go down this path and I can elaborate. I've had a fair bit
> of practice with using them.
>
>> While I live in Edmonton, in the midst of a lot of snow, I've never shot
>> a lot of pics in the white stuf, so definitely have a lot to learn in
>> this setting.
> And hereabouts it's the reverse - a good snowfall here would probably mean
> the end of the world was nigh... Shorts and t-shirt, even in winter..
>
> cheers,
>
> mt
>
Thanks for the info, Mark. I'll ponder this for a while and try the shot
again this weekend.
BTW, after my three weeks in California, I really miss your warmer
climate...
Take Care,
Dudley
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Old fashioned battery tester
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aef7f5267962d1e4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 12:32 pm
From: Marty Fremen
"Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote:
> Reminds me of the very first camera I ever bought (no idea what brand
> it was). The 'exposure metering system' on it was an eyepiece you
> looked through and saw a piece of film with the numbers 1 to 10 in
> rows (white on a black background). As the numbers increased, they got
> darker until you couldn't see the next one. That was the number to set
> the exposure ring on!
I once had a handheld exposure meter that worked on that principle,
basically a neutral density step wedge, the trouble is that your eyes
quickly accustom themselves to changing light conditions so it doesn't
work well, also I think different people tend to get different readings.
I found it gave me about 3 stops overexposure so it was better to just
used the exposure guide printed on the film box!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus admits a try at "pro" would gut their 4/3rds system
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8ef3252b6bf18872?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 2:37 pm
From: RichA
I think that pretty much sums up what it would cost Olympus if they
made a go for the professional market in meaningful way. The end of
4/3rds as a viable sensor format. They have to go with something like
the 35mm (kudos for Olympus for asking "what does FF mean anyway?"
earlier in the interview) sensor size, no matter what format. I would
personally like to see a 4/3rds proportioned sensor with a diagonal of
40mm as a pro camera. I still dislike 3:2 as a format.
This, from a Dpreview interview:
Dpreview:
But the point is they have the advantage that they can offer both full
frame and smaller sensor bodies, and whether you can persuade enough
professionals that you can offer a viable alternative to the full
frame systems offered by other manufacturers to justify the continuing
development of your professional system. To us the E-620 is represents
exactly what FT is 'about' and the sensor format gives it genuine
benefits over the competition. It's easy to understand its position in
the market and its easy to see its appeal.
Olympus:
MAG: If we were targeting to really lead the professional market this
would be a key issue. So the question is, are we targeting to lead the
professional market in the short term? Today that's not in our plan.
If we really wanted to succeed we would have to look at all the
alternatives, which would most probably break all the work we've done
on Four Thirds.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Help with date problem.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e42d8c9b4c58396f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 4:06 pm
From: nospam
In article <M-WdneNafvIT717UnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> >> I am not inclined to try to decipher a command line interface, given the
> >> nature of such interfaces when combined with a person who doesn't type
> >> very well, and who is unfamiliar with the program. I am sure that the
> >> program would do what I want, but trying to figure it out is more work
> >> than this is worth.
> >
> > there's a windows gui wrapper for it, but i've never tried it and i
> > don't know if it exposes the full functionality of it (my guess is that
> > it doesn't). and if i recall, one of the examples in the help does
> > exactly what you need.
>
> If so, I didn't find it. It seems like such a simple, and 'likely'
> problem, I am surprised it is so difficult to find a quick, easy, free,
> fix for it. Still looking, but thanks for trying.
try this:
<http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/foto/exif/exiftoolgui.htm>
it looks like it can do a time shift.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sandisk ESP or 30mb/sec - Which one is faster?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6732cd3c50af4827?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 4:40 pm
From: "William Jones"
I have a number of different Sandisk 8gb CF cards bought at different times
over the past two years.
All are Extreme III cards. Some are marked "ESP" and some are marked
"30MB/s".
The "ESP" cards are marked on the back with the letters "SDCFX". There are
no such identifiers on the "30MB/s" cards.
Which one is faster? I can't tell from Sandisk's website.
TIA---
==============================================================================
TOPIC: paypal wholesale fashion sport shoes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b16ce1716a7c4519?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 5:00 pm
From: godmnend@163.com
paypal wholesale Brand Sport Shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale Men's Sport Shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale Fashionable Sports Shoes (paypal payment)
( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
paypal wholesale Running Shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Other Sports Shoes
paypal wholesale Basketball Shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale Ladies' Dress Shoes
paypal wholesale Children's Sports Shoes
paypal wholesale Mobile Phones(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale Hiking Shoes & Boots
paypal wholesale Shoes Stock
paypal wholesale Tennis Shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale brand sport shoes
paypal wholesale men's sport shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale fashion sport shoes
paypal wholesale basketball shoes
paypal wholesale running shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
brand shoes
paypal wholesale fashion shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale men's shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
sneakers
paypal wholesale athletic shoes
paypal wholesale basketball shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
badketball jersy
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Air Jordans 8 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8b6ab726206ad30d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 5:01 pm
From: godmnend@163.com
Air Jordans 1 shoes
Air Jordans 2 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans 3 shoes
Air Jordans 3.5 shoes
Air Jordans 4 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans 5 shoes
Air Jordans 6 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans 7 shoes
Air Jordans 8 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans 9 shoes
Air Jordans 10
Air Jordans 11 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans 12 shoes
Air Jordans 13 shoes
Air Jordans 14 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans 15 shoes
Air Jordans 16 (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans 17 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans 18 shoes
Air Jordans 19 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans 21 shoes
Air Jordans 23 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans DMP shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans 15.5 shoes
Air Jordans 19.5 shoes
Air Jordans 9 & Air Jordans 23 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Air Jordans 13 & Air Jordans 11 shoes
Air Jordans 13 & Air Jordans 23 shoes
Air Jordans 1 & Air Jordans 6 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Air Jordans 21 & Air Jordans 23 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Air Jordans 18 & Air Jordans 23 shoes
Air Jordans 24 shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Air Jordans 1.5 shoes
==============================================================================
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
Oh no - the links has been moved. Please I love to have
