rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* square negs - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
* life after Windows.... - 9 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
* Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right - 7 messages, 6
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/256feefad4f3ad75?hl=en
* Color more difficult than B/W - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8a1c5817babb7ebb?hl=en
* Claimed high scanned film "information" is mostly garbage - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/945d6f2385eb0b52?hl=en
* Portuguese photos (with a strange bird) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/66bf39c330da009b?hl=en
* How can I take photos of GOD??? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ed77e47905febf46?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: square negs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 12:29 pm
From: George Kerby
On 4/1/09 9:59 AM, in article QqGdnbSmw7nzHE7UnZ2dnVY3goydnZ2d@giganews.com,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "PDM" <pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>> The emulsion does not touch the lid. The white lid is removed so that the
>>> moving lightsource in the scanner shines on the film. This doesn't touch
>>> the
>>> film either, there is a considerable gap. This is the same on every
>>> flatbed
>>> scanner designed for scanning film.
>>>
>>> Also note that while Epson say (on some models at least) to put film
>>> imulsion side up, other makers tell you to put the imulsion side down.
>>>
>>> PDM
>>>
>>>
>> "emulsion"
>
> Sheesh, give the guy a break; he got it right the first time.
>
> And he knows how to use a film scanner.
You say 'potato', and I say 'potatoe'...
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 1:54 pm
From: "eugene"
"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:gqvpd0$qbh$1@qmul...
>
> "eugene" <eugene@home.com> wrote in message
> news:We6dnWPmBoGdh0_UnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>A friend has asked me to get some prints from negs that are 30 years old.
>>On a flatbed scanner, should the shiny neg surface be up or down?
>
> Don't any of the negs have text in them, not even a car reg. number......
> Most film had frame numbers too.
> Even if it's wrong in most software you can flip the images later.
I recognised the church so knew where the door was positioned
>
>
>
--
And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make
==============================================================================
TOPIC: life after Windows....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 12:33 pm
From: Selaw Tihsera
On Apr 1, 6:20 pm, rochrist <rochr...@charter.net> wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > White Spirit writes:
>
> >> MP3 is not proprietary.
>
> > MP3 is a minefield of software patent and copyright issues, both for players
> > and for recorders of MP3 content.
>
> >> To be fair, Ubuntu is not always the best choice for beginners given
> >> that it can be quite restrictive and buggy. It's not hard to look on
> >> Google to find simple instructions to get what you need, but there are
> >> better distros for the beginner.
>
> > And that's another problem with Linux: an endless number of "distributions"
> > which are actually different operating systems. With no standards, there's no
> > hope of competing with Windows.
>
> Uh, no. They aren't.
>
> And there's also no problem finding players for WAV or MP3 files.
>
> For an OS with no hope competing with Windows, it certainly seems to be
> doing a fine job squeezing them in the server marketplace. Take a look
> sometime at how many of those websites you vist are running on Linux boxes.
and run MySql not MS SQL Server
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 12:59 pm
From: "Keith Willshaw"
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gqvmhl$g98$1@news.motzarella.org...
> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:45:17 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Keith Willshaw writes:
>>
>>> I am an old Unix hand (along with MVS XA, Primos and VMS) but was
>>> generally pro Windows until the abomination known as Vista landed on
>>> my desktop.
>>
>> Vista was a huge mistake. Now that Bill is gone, you can expect
>> Microsoft to make more and more huge mistakes.
>
> That shows a huge misunderstanding about what Microsoft exists for.
>
> Microsoft does not exist to support existing products.
>
> It exists to sell products.
>
> As the computer market aproaches saturation it is pretty obvious that
> they need a product they can sell into a mass market.
>
> Very few home users buy M$ Office
>
With the new pricing policy putting home versions of office around
£80 I suspect that is less than accurate.
> The only way they can kill a stable and effective product like Windows XP
> is by withdrawing support for it so forcing people to buy a new product
> when purchasing a new computer.
>
> It's known to the industry as 'The Windows tax'.
>
> I won't pay. I buy my hardware either with a free operating system or
> without an OS and install my own.
>
This is not workable if you are trying to sell software, we offered
Linux versions of our software. Nobody bought it, today they dont even
ask, they simply want the Windows version.
>
> But most domestic users can't or won't do this.
>
And I understand why, I have been using various flavours of Unix
since the 80's and for a novice user they are a pain in the ass.
Keith
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 1:06 pm
From: "Keith Willshaw"
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:89l6t4lt98ne3tfqiidtpc1849v93610lf@4ax.com...
> Ray Fischer writes:
>
>> Yes there are ways.
>
> If a program creates a file, how does the API check to see that the file's
> name is correct?
>
If FileNameOK = True then
run Api
Else
msgbox "Error in file name"
Endif
End
Function FileNameOk (Filename as String) as Boolean
<Do verification stuff>
If Verification stuff = OK then
return True
Else
return False
Endif
End Function
Keith
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 2:13 pm
From: William Black
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:59:13 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gqvmhl$g98$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:45:17 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> Keith Willshaw writes:
>> Very few home users buy M$ Office
>>
>>
> With the new pricing policy putting home versions of office around £80 I
> suspect that is less than accurate.
Could be.
As Star Office is free, why spend the money.
I know some bits of M$ Office don't work in Star Office, but they're the
stuff nobody but a few ever use.
>> The only way they can kill a stable and effective product like Windows
>> XP is by withdrawing support for it so forcing people to buy a new
>> product when purchasing a new computer.
>>
>> It's known to the industry as 'The Windows tax'.
>>
>> I won't pay. I buy my hardware either with a free operating system or
>> without an OS and install my own.
>>
> This is not workable if you are trying to sell software, we offered
> Linux versions of our software. Nobody bought it, today they dont even
> ask, they simply want the Windows version.
I'm afraid I wouldn't know.
I gave up selling software in about 1982.
>> But most domestic users can't or won't do this.
>>
>>
> And I understand why, I have been using various flavours of Unix since
> the 80's and for a novice user they are a pain in the ass.
Having used Xandros for about a year now and Ubuntu for the last few
weeks I'm finding it a lot less painful than I imagined.
The modern desktops are remarkably easy to use.
--
William Black
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 3:45 pm
From: Mxsmanic
William Black writes:
> That shows a huge misunderstanding about what Microsoft exists for.
>
> Microsoft does not exist to support existing products.
>
> It exists to sell products.
The mistakes it is making are not aiding it in the sale of products. Vista
has done very poorly.
Furthermore, today's Microsoft is exclusively profit-oriented. That was not
the case when Bill was in charge, as he had other priorities besides making
money. His successor, Steve Ballmer, is purely a businessman, and judging by
mistakes like Vista, perhaps not a very good one.
> As the computer market aproaches saturation it is pretty obvious that
> they need a product they can sell into a mass market.
But they aren't producing one.
> Very few home users buy M$ Office
Businesses buy Office in droves. Office and operating systems are the two
cash cows of Microsoft.
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 3:46 pm
From: Mxsmanic
William Black writes:
> That's because they have little alternative.
You are contradicting yourself. First you say that Microsoft can force people
to buy a new operating system, and now you say they have little alternative
but to continue supplying and supporting an old operating system. Which is
it?
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 3:49 pm
From: Mxsmanic
William Black writes:
> Could be.
>
> As Star Office is free, why spend the money.
Because more people know how to use Microsoft Office, and they know that most
other people are using Microsoft Office as well.
> I'm afraid I wouldn't know.
>
> I gave up selling software in about 1982.
Something to keep in mind when telling others they are out of touch.
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 3:52 pm
From: Mxsmanic
Keith Willshaw writes:
> If FileNameOK = True then
> run Api
> Else
> msgbox "Error in file name"
> Endif
>
> End
What criteria are used to validate the name?
> <Do verification stuff>
Explain the verification stuff.
A program creates a file in C:\Data\stuff.dat. Is this file correctly named
and in the appropriate folder or not?
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 3:54 pm
From: Mxsmanic
rochrist writes:
> For an OS with no hope competing with Windows, it certainly seems to be
> doing a fine job squeezing them in the server marketplace. Take a look
> sometime at how many of those websites you vist are running on Linux boxes.
I'm surprised by how many are running Windows.
UNIX is usually a better choice for servers, but the inferior Linux has gotten
a lot more hype, so people choose it more often (often because they recognize
the name, whereas they've never heard of UNIX). The BSDs are better than
Linux for servers, though.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/256feefad4f3ad75?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 1:12 pm
From: ClintEastWoodyAllenAlda
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:31:53 -0500, SEMI-Sane wrote:
> C J Campbell added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>> Well, not in a democracy.
>>
>> Free speech has nothing to do with form of government. A
>> democracy is just as capable of being tyrannical as any
>> totalitarian dictatorship.
>>
> I suppose you're right but history tells us that the most benign
> government forms wrt freedoms like speech, religion, peaceable
> assembly, and all the other things in our Bill of Rights
You still have one?
Oh yeah, that's right -- Obama reclaimed it pro bono.
> are FAR more
> likely in a democracy. Even a Socialist government like Canada, Great
> Britain, France, Germany
Say what?
Well, consistency is nice, even if it's consistent st00pidity.
The element of predictability is always so comforting.
I truly wish you were able to be aware of how you really know, Jer.
You'd be sadder, but much wiser.
Yer bud,
Clint
> and the like are more restrictive plus
> generally do not have a specific codification in a document that is
> above the meddling of the politicians.
>
> As to tyrannical governments such as Fascist dictatorships, basic
> freedoms like speech, travel, and all the usual things people expect
> are the FIRST to go.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 1:16 pm
From: ClintEastWoodyAllenAlda
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 04:35:49 +1100, DRS wrote:
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
> news:Xns9BE07F7A4A28FReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30
>> C J Campbell added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>
>>>> Well, not in a democracy.
>>>
>>> Free speech has nothing to do with form of government. A
>>> democracy is just as capable of being tyrannical as any
>>> totalitarian dictatorship.
>>>
>> I suppose you're right but history tells us that the most benign
>> government forms wrt freedoms like speech, religion, peaceable
>> assembly, and all the other things in our Bill of Rights are FAR more
>> likely in a democracy. Even a Socialist government like Canada, Great
>> Britain, France, Germany and the like are more restrictive plus
>
> Not one of those countries has a socialist government. They are all liberal
> democracies.
You'll have to excuse Semi-Sane.
He has a fixation on 'Socialism' -- and many other things.
He's under psychiatric care, but refuses to take his meds. And that
is Trvth.
Clint
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 1:18 pm
From: Twibil
On Apr 1, 11:43 am, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
> Actually the United States is a representative republic.
> Some of the States, California for example are true democracies where
> the impact of the citizen has a direct impact.
Hush, you'll frighten the far right wing-nuts!
They think California is a Communist dictatorship, secretly run by
Keith Olberman, and we wouldn't want them to find out otherwise, would
we?
~Pete
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 1:55 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-04-01 13:18:52 -0700, Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> said:
> On Apr 1, 11:43 am, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
>
>> Actually the United States is a representative republic.
>> Some of the States, California for example are true democracies where
>> the impact of the citizen has a direct impact.
>
> Hush, you'll frighten the far right wing-nuts!
>
> They think California is a Communist dictatorship, secretly run by
> Keith Olberman, and we wouldn't want them to find out otherwise, would
> we?
>
> ~Pete
For the most it works well, but sometimes the California Democracy can
lead to big time damage.
Look at what happened 6 years ago when the then Governor Gray Davis was
constitutionally obliged to do away with the Vehicle License Fee
rebates because of a California budget deficit. That opened the window
for the Central Valley/Orange County/San Diego County right wing-nuts
to recall Davis and seat Der Guvernator.
Mr. Olympia immediately reinstated the VLF rebates which have now been
in place for the last 6 years. The cost approximately $6B per year.
Arhnhuld's plan was to borrow $10B for 18 months to fill the revenue
gap. Now we have lost approximately $30B in revenue plus servicing the
$10B bond creating a hole of about $40B.
California was well positioned to survive the current financial crisis
even with lowered estate values and sales/income tax revenues. The hole
created just couldn't be filled and none of the Sacramento politicos,
Arhnhuld included, had the balls to contemplate pissing on that third
rail.
Time has proven Gray Davis to have been correct. The right wing-nuts
just called him a tax and spend Democrat, and were wrong.
The same voters who complained they couldn't afford an extra $200-$300
a year for a SUV or BMW license fee, are now complaining over service
cuts, teacher lay-offs, increased UC & Cal State fees, and the
potential early release of 10,000 felons.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 2:20 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009040113550977923-savageduck@savagenet...
> On 2009-04-01 13:18:52 -0700, Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Apr 1, 11:43 am, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually the United States is a representative republic.
>>> Some of the States, California for example are true democracies where
>>> the impact of the citizen has a direct impact.
>>
>> Hush, you'll frighten the far right wing-nuts!
>>
>> They think California is a Communist dictatorship, secretly run by
>> Keith Olberman, and we wouldn't want them to find out otherwise, would
>> we?
>>
>> ~Pete
>
>
> For the most it works well, but sometimes the California Democracy can
> lead to big time damage.
> Look at what happened 6 years ago when the then Governor Gray Davis was
> constitutionally obliged to do away with the Vehicle License Fee rebates
> because of a California budget deficit. That opened the window for the
> Central Valley/Orange County/San Diego County right wing-nuts to recall
> Davis and seat Der Guvernator.
>
> Mr. Olympia immediately reinstated the VLF rebates which have now been in
> place for the last 6 years. The cost approximately $6B per year.
> Arhnhuld's plan was to borrow $10B for 18 months to fill the revenue gap.
> Now we have lost approximately $30B in revenue plus servicing the $10B
> bond creating a hole of about $40B.
> California was well positioned to survive the current financial crisis
> even with lowered estate values and sales/income tax revenues. The hole
> created just couldn't be filled and none of the Sacramento politicos,
> Arhnhuld included, had the balls to contemplate pissing on that third
> rail.
>
> Time has proven Gray Davis to have been correct. The right wing-nuts just
> called him a tax and spend Democrat, and were wrong.
>
> The same voters who complained they couldn't afford an extra $200-$300 a
> year for a SUV or BMW license fee, are now complaining over service cuts,
> teacher lay-offs, increased UC & Cal State fees, and the potential early
> release of 10,000 felons.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
>
The problem with ideology, left or right, is that it really messes up common
sense...
Take Care,
Dudley
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 2:48 pm
From: Bob
In article <2009033120054622503-savageduck@savagenet>,
savageduck@savage.net says...
-:On 2009-03-31 18:54:23 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
-:
-:> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:10:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
-:> <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
-:>
-:>> Neil Jones wrote:
-:>>> Colin.D wrote:
-:>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
-:>>>>> nospam wrote:
-:>>>>>> In article <uY5Al.46468$HF6.41070@newsfe08.iad>, Martin Brown
-:>>>>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
-:>>>>>>
-:>>>>>>>>> No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.
-:>>>>>>>> As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least
-:>>>>>>>> in the UK
-:>>>>>>> Only if he actually succeeded in deleting the images... which
-:>>>>>>> delete all seldom does.
-:>>>>>>
-:>>>>>> it rarely fails.
-:>>>>>>
-:>>>>>>> Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could recover
-:>>>>>>> deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this
-:>>>>>>> respect.
-:>>>>>>
-:>>>>>> perhaps they could be recovered but that is not relevant. one
-:>>>>>> moment he had a card full of photos and the next moment he did
-:>>>>>> not. that's destruction.
-:>>>>> ONLY if the data were actually lost, which is NOT usually the case.
-:>>>>
-:>>>> But the cop *intended* the images to be lost. The fact that they
-:>>>> might
-:>>>> be recoverable was beyond the cop's knowledge; if not he might well
-:>>>> have physically damaged the card. In the cop's mind he *did*
-:>>>> destroy property.
-:>>>>
-:>>>
-:>>> I got to think a little bit but how much can they (law enforcement)
-:>>> delete. The newer devices that are coming out with bluetooth will
-:>>> transfer files to the neighboring devices. If your friends are with
-:>>> you and you transfer the files to them with bluetooth then the
-:>>> question becomes, how MANY can they delete? Are they going frisk
-:>>> everyone and delete all images on all cameras?
-:>>
-:>> The kid in me would want to deal with Officr Hostile by just letting him do
-:>> his deletion, going home, recovering the images, putting them up on
-:>> fotoomsk.ru or somewhere else that's going to laugh in Officer Hostile's
-:>> face when he complains, then emailing the police chief, the mayor, and the
-:>> local newspapers and TV stations with the story and the link, preferably
-:>> including HD video of Officer Hostile's little tirade.
-:>
-:> You're assuming that there's something in the photographs that would
-:> reflect badly on Robby (the officer in question). There's no
-:> indication of that.
-:>
-:> A person who was being arrested on a drug charge was manhandled and
-:> that was being photographed. There's no reason to assume that Robby
-:> was involved with that. According to our retired policeman in this
-:> newsgroup, Robby - as a member of a drug task force - would not have
-:> been the arresting officer.
-:>
-:> I used the word "manhandled", but this was an arrest of a druggie in
-:> the projects. There's no indication that the arrestee's demeanor did
-:> not require that. It wasn't mentioned if the guy was high, putting up
-:> a fight, or just not getting to the ground quickly enough.
-:>
-:> I related this incident as I heard it in a casual conversation. Had I
-:> known that it would have received this much attention, I would have
-:> asked Robby some questions and been able to present a more accurate
-:> picture.
-:>
-:> Questions like: Was the person with the camera a bystander who was
-:> just standing by quietly, or was the person pushing into the scene
-:> aggressively? Was the person warned sufficiently that he was not to
-:> take photographs? (Whether or not you think it a warning was
-:> deserved, this would make a difference in Bobby's reaction)
-:>
-:> What was the general nature of the situation, and were things getting
-:> out-of-hand or was it a fairly routine bust? Did Bobby, in
-:> retrospect, think he acted impetuously or improperly or did he feel
-:> that he had some sort of mandate to demonstrate his authority.
-:>
-:> I didn't ask any of those questions. The conversation was more on the
-:> subject of the difficulty of photographing basking alligators on the
-:> Econolatchee River banks. (They sense you coming and slide into the
-:> water). The arrest incident was a very minor part of the
-:> conversation.
-:>
-:> Robby's a big, kind of soft-spoken, guy who doesn't seem to me to be
-:> the cowboy type. However, I have no idea what he's like on the job on
-:> in stress situations.
-:>
-:>
-:>
-:
-:There are so many elements missing from this story.
-:I can accept that you are relaying it to us in good faith, in the
-:context of the OP. Now you are making hearsay assumptions
he made no assumptions, only poised questions.
you made the assumptions.
-: regarding the
-:possible scenario for the involvement of the photographer during this
-:arrest, to justify "Bobby's" actions and your trust in his character as
-:you know it.
-:
-:The issue is, the story as you originally told it does not indicate any
-:obstruction of the officers performing their duty (the arrest) by the
-:photographer. What actually took place with the actual arrest, and the
-:behaviour of the arrestee is irrelevant.
-:This is about the photographer who was just taking photographs. He was
-:not arrested for obstruction, just accosted by an overzealous officer.
-:Therefore all of us in this NG have been led to understand "Bobby"
-:acted irrationally to destroy the photographs (files). This act,
-:whether, fact or fabrication is at the very least in a US Legal sense,
-:a violation of Due Process. At worst, if things happened as you
-:described, is illegal destruction of personal property and possibly
-:assault/battery by a Peace Officer under the color of authority (or
-:Law). The latter in California can be a misdemeanor or a felony
-:depending of the severity, and would provoke an Internal Affairs
-:investigation. I can't speak for Florida, but I believe he would have
-:similar problems there if a complaint was made.
-:
-:The bottom line is "bobby" was wrong in believing he had the "right"
-:because of his badge, to act to confiscate and destroy the
-:photographer's property.
-:
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 4:34 pm
From: tony cooper
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:10:34 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
wrote:
>On 2009-04-01 08:04:06 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:32:35 -0700, C J Campbell
>> <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My thoughts as well. You do not enforce the law by destroying evidence.
>>> Further, any lawyer representing the photographer is going to point out
>>> that the cop was obviously attempting to destroy evidence that he was
>>> committing a crime.
>>>
>>> If his actions were not police brutality, then he should have welcomed
>>> the photos, not destroyed them.
>>
>> You say "his actions". I understand that you don't have the complete
>> story (because I don't have it to relate), but what indication do you
>> have that he was involved in the arrest action at all?
>
>Agreed. None of us have the complete facts as the relate to this story.
>>
>> After all, you are the person who pointed out that he would *not* be
>> part of the arrest team. He, according you, would be restricted to
>> being an observer of the arrest.
>
>Here I think you have mixed up "C J Campbell's" opinion & response with
>mine.
You are probably right.
>"C J" did not make the assertion that "Robby" would not have been
>part of the arrest team if he was "undercover", I did. This still
>sounds less like an actual "undercover" operation than a drug
>enforcement unit arrest of a known, or surveilled suspect.
Now I'm getting more confused. I thought it was said that undercover
task force members don't make arrests. I don't know if this was an
undercover operation or a simple arrest. That didn't come up.
It's quite possible that I don't know the difference between
"undercover", "task force", "drug enforcement units", any other jargon
terms. Robby works drug cases. That's all I know for sure. Robby
did say that he didn't want his photograph circulated in the druggie
community, so that sounds like he works undercover. Police
terminology and procedures are not areas of familiarity to me.
>The story you told provoked a reaction in this NG because "Robby's"
>actions were patently wrong, regardless of his motivation, or your
>opinion and defense of his character.
I agree that he was wrong in that his actions violated the procedures
the police are supposed to follow. I am not greatly disturbed over
this, though.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Color more difficult than B/W
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8a1c5817babb7ebb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 1:52 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
news:762dnWHqldI1KU7UnZ2dnUVZ8sOWnZ2d@novis.pt...
> It's been said that B/W pictures are more pure or art, whatever, but I
> always felt that color is more difficult to catch and please the eye.
> After all, with B/W you only have to think about contrast, sharpness and
> saturation. In color there's a whole new dimension.
> Some colors together will give you a headache, but in B/W it looks fine.
> Whitebalance is another problem.
>
> Famous female photographer, Annie Leibovitz, even said she didn't know
> how to make color pictures at first, because she was only taught B/W in
> school and she had to learn it her self:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/annie-leibovitz/life-through-a-lens/16/
>
> --
> ---
> Focus
>
In the world of film, colour processing definitely was more exacting than
BW. And, within the realm of colour, processing slides was even tougher
than negs. But, a lot depends on the desired result.
For instance, in my opinion, it's easier to capture the essence of a festive
scene with colour than it is with BW, especially in those scenes where
colourful costumes are present. BW can render the ocasion more starkly than
might be desired.
Take Care,
Dudley
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 2:39 pm
From: "Focus"
"Dudley Hanks" <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in message
news:0uQAl.21057$PH1.10994@edtnps82...
>
> "Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
> news:762dnWHqldI1KU7UnZ2dnUVZ8sOWnZ2d@novis.pt...
>> It's been said that B/W pictures are more pure or art, whatever, but I
>> always felt that color is more difficult to catch and please the eye.
>> After all, with B/W you only have to think about contrast, sharpness and
>> saturation. In color there's a whole new dimension.
>> Some colors together will give you a headache, but in B/W it looks fine.
>> Whitebalance is another problem.
>>
>> Famous female photographer, Annie Leibovitz, even said she didn't know
>> how to make color pictures at first, because she was only taught B/W in
>> school and she had to learn it her self:
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/annie-leibovitz/life-through-a-lens/16/
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> Focus
>>
>
> In the world of film, colour processing definitely was more exacting than
> BW. And, within the realm of colour, processing slides was even tougher
> than negs. But, a lot depends on the desired result.
>
> For instance, in my opinion, it's easier to capture the essence of a
> festive scene with colour than it is with BW, especially in those scenes
> where colourful costumes are present. BW can render the ocasion more
> starkly than might be desired.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
True, but with different lights it's much easier in B/W, because you got no
worries about white balance.
--
---
Focus
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 3:03 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
news:3Lydna0M3LyGQk7UnZ2dnUVZ8r2WnZ2d@novis.pt...
>
> "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in message
> news:0uQAl.21057$PH1.10994@edtnps82...
>>
>> "Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
>> news:762dnWHqldI1KU7UnZ2dnUVZ8sOWnZ2d@novis.pt...
>>> It's been said that B/W pictures are more pure or art, whatever, but I
>>> always felt that color is more difficult to catch and please the eye.
>>> After all, with B/W you only have to think about contrast, sharpness and
>>> saturation. In color there's a whole new dimension.
>>> Some colors together will give you a headache, but in B/W it looks fine.
>>> Whitebalance is another problem.
>>>
>>> Famous female photographer, Annie Leibovitz, even said she didn't know
>>> how to make color pictures at first, because she was only taught B/W in
>>> school and she had to learn it her self:
>>>
>>> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/annie-leibovitz/life-through-a-lens/16/
>>>
>>> --
>>> ---
>>> Focus
>>>
>>
>> In the world of film, colour processing definitely was more exacting than
>> BW. And, within the realm of colour, processing slides was even tougher
>> than negs. But, a lot depends on the desired result.
>>
>> For instance, in my opinion, it's easier to capture the essence of a
>> festive scene with colour than it is with BW, especially in those scenes
>> where colourful costumes are present. BW can render the ocasion more
>> starkly than might be desired.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
>
> True, but with different lights it's much easier in B/W, because you got
> no worries about white balance.
>
> --
> ---
> Focus
>
Yep, mixed lighting is much easier in BW. Also, when shooting portraits,
kids, etc, some skin conditions will stick out like a sore thumb (pun
intended) when shooting with colour, whereas BW can mask the condition
fairly effectively. Even poorly applied makeup often is less noticeable
with BW shots.
Going back to the film world, sandwich prints tended to be easier with BW as
well, since putting two colour negs on top of each other often tended to
have undesireable results due to unforseen additive or subtractive
filtration effects.
Take Care,
Dudley
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Claimed high scanned film "information" is mostly garbage
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/945d6f2385eb0b52?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 1:54 pm
From: John McWilliams
dan c. wrote:
> On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and the
>> 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the compression
>> that is generating the size difference.
This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
being equal.
--
John McWilliams
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 2:13 pm
From: Alan Browne
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> There is just as much crap in that assessment as there is in the very
> claims that you dispute in your first sentence.
Part of what Rich says is true although nothing to do with his (as
usual) idiotic presentation.
Film has so much dynamic range and no more. But high end scanners scan
beyond that and store beyond that. The part that is noise or simply out
of dynamic range is just filler bits in the resulting uncompressed file.
Many scanners are 16 bit/colour yet there is arguably no more than 13 -
14 bits of dynamic range in the film. So 2 - 3 (up to 18%) bits of the
scan data is indeed garbage/filler. Because of bit, byte, word ordering
and the setting of those garbage bits by the scan s/w they might not be
compressed out if they are not constant.
Where the film itself does not resolve to the ability of the scanner is
further waste as well. Where a 4000 - 6000 dpi scan of high res film
does yield mainly useful information, that is not so of most ISO 100 and
higher films.
Rich, as usual, has baited people with a dumb posting. Just state the
facts and move on.
--
-- 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.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Portuguese photos (with a strange bird)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/66bf39c330da009b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 4:54 pm
From: "Jeff R."
Noons wrote:
> Focus wrote,on my timestamp of 1/04/2009 8:34 AM:
>> http://nikon-box.com/
>>
>> Does anybody know what bird that is?
>>
>
>
> Pardal
You're excused.
Now - do you know what type of bird it is?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How can I take photos of GOD???
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ed77e47905febf46?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 1 2009 5:40 pm
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-03-28 20:09:07 -0700, Jasper Tiler <slimier_trap@hotmail.com> said:
> I want to prove the existence of GOD, so that all
> people will believe in HIM.
>
> For that purpose, I need a photo of GOD.
>
> How can I take a photo of GOD???
Why don't you ask God?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
==============================================================================
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
