rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* I hate environmentalists - 12 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
* Printing Grayscale in Color? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/13dafa8c16008c2d?hl=en
* Canon & Nikon Image Stabilisation - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa42f50d8a88f1c8?hl=en
* square negs - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
* Is there anybody here that can read? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c9335bfe34017e91?hl=en
* Best Photo Scanners - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa72ed087c841433?hl=en
* Close-Up is available for viewing - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/21a334c20daf593b?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I hate environmentalists
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 12:42 pm
From: Alan Browne
DRS wrote:
> Contrary to popular myth, most scientific progress from the High Middle Ages
> to the Rennaisance occurred within the church and with its active support
> and blessing. While not wanting to underplay the tensions between doctrine
> and science then and now, the idea that the church always has been, is and
> always will be opposed to science is an Enlightenment myth and is utterly
> ahistorical.
What myth?
The issue here is not science but evolution - something the Christian
churches could not abide any more than strong declarations about earth's
central location in the universe.
US Christian fundamentalists (tradition of no central church authority)
most esp. cannot bridge faith to reason to the point where they stupidly
attack reason. In court case after court case they attempt to remove
evolution from the classroom and/or insist that creationism be taught in
high schools.
Teach creationism in church or at home, not in schools.
--
-- 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.
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 1:38 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:
>C J Campbell added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> I think this is what is the root cause of the increasing
>> polarization and divisiveness in the United States and
>> throughout the rest of Western Civilization. Calling someone a
>> Nazi is not going to persuade him to change his mind. He knows
>> he is not a Nazi, so calling him one only convinces him that you
>> are an idiot who has no better argument.
>
>There are Nazis and then there are Nazis. For example, there are
>Green Nazis who don't bother to be confused by the facts so
>attempting to get them to change their absurd notions is futile. And
>then, there's the Marxists and Fascist kind of Nazis now in control
>of the White House and Congress, which is easy to uderstand and prove
>if you are at all aware of the last 100 years of American history.
>But, since you are exactly the kind of Far Left Loon most likely to
>get tagged one of the genres of "Nazi", I hardly expect you to
>understand this.
>
>> That goes for all the name-calling in politics these days.
>> Portraying George W. Bush as a fool or Obama as a socialist or a
>> helpless imbecile are not constructive arguments, no matter how
>> much you believe them to be true. It only alienates your enemies
>> further and even makes some of your friends wonder about you.
>>
>Bush was inarticulate so he appeared the fool, but Hussein isn't a
>Socialist, he IS a Marxist and a Fascist as well. Whether you agree
>with the label or not, it is true. What is sad in our once great
>country right now is that it's leader has the unmitigated gall to go
>to Europe and insult the very people he is sworn to defend.
>
>Don't bother replying, Soup Man, as I never read your vitriolic
>replies.
He need not reply, as you have proven his point beyond any
mere argument he could present with words!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 1:42 pm
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Alan Browne added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> How, then, do you explain that the countries of the world that
>> are the most advanced in science and technology are the most
>> religious? Strange contradiction, isn't it?
>
> Hmm, France, Britain, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden,
> Canada... not exactly religious stomping grounds yet leaders in
> science and technology. Even Israel, quite the technological
> leader, is a largely secular nation.
Israel is a secular nation? Where have you been all your life? Aren't
there plenty of Jewish faith people over there, or are you just
another of the secular progressive Far Left Loons that doesn't want
to be confused by the facts? The rest of this is too idiotic to even
comment on.
> As to the US, the most religious people seem to be quite distant
> from the centers of the most advanced science and technology.
> Boston does not strike me as particularly religious any more
> than Silicon Valley.
>
> Further, while many scientists are religious, it reflects their
> upbringing and culture, more than some epiphany that ignites
> their spiritual longings.
>
> Here's a new way to do things: Make it FORBIDDEN to instruct,
> indoctrinate and train children in any religious or spiritual
> thought. When they turn 18 they're taught about religion and
> then they can decide what course to take in their lives.
>
> Of course the basic survival mechanism of most religions is to
> get 'em when they are very young and keep 'em on the hook by
> whatever means including the fear of eternal damnation, burning,
> etc.
>
> Powerful brainwashing, that.
>
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 2:13 pm
From: John McWilliams
Alan Browne wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>> Yeah, that makes it worse, but it isn't an issue of being too strong,
>> I just find the odor to be so incredibly unpleasant. BO, while not
>> pleasant, it more tolerable to me than things people do to smell
>> likable. For me, no odor is far preferable to anything artificial.
>> For years, I've recommend my special lady friends refrain from adding
>> anything after their bath - save that nonsense for someone else.
>
> Different perfumes for different skins. If your nose is good you can
> identify the perfume that matches her skin type. I've gone 6 for 6 with
> my girlfriend.
That's an admirable record, but would she agree to an audit?? :-)
--
John McWilliams
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 4:12 pm
From: Ron Hunter
Alan Browne wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their
>>>>>> kind,
>>>>> What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written
>>>>> with a Sharpie on a postage stamp.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Probably better than what rabid environmentalists seem to believe,
>>>> which is that humans should just disappear from the face of the
>>>> earth, and leave it to the animals.
>>> What a pathetic and angry distortion. Environmentalism is about
>>> harmony and balance with the environment.
>>>
>>> The environment is our sustenance. Better take care of it. We're
>>> collectively failing to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Are you saying that there AREN'T those in the environmentalist movement
>> that DO advocate the end of all human existence? If so, then you need
>> to pay more attention to them.
>
> Ignoring the logic failing of the paragraph above...
>
> No I don't need to pay attention to them. There are always extreme
> fringes in any category of people and the likelihood that they will
> cause any great harm is fairly nil in the greater context.
>
> Your assertion that all "rabid" environmentalists advocate the end of
> humanity is plain wrong and just tainted propaganda.
>
Who gave you the right to define my terms? To ME a 'rabid
environmentalist' IS one who goes so far as to advocate extermination of
humans, and return of the earth to the animals.
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 4:14 pm
From: Ron Hunter
Alan Browne wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> How, then, do you explain that the countries of the world that are the
>> most advanced in science and technology are the most religious? Strange
>> contradiction, isn't it?
>
> Hmm, France, Britain, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada... not
> exactly religious stomping grounds yet leaders in science and
> technology. Even Israel, quite the technological leader, is a largely
> secular nation.
>
> As to the US, the most religious people seem to be quite distant from
> the centers of the most advanced science and technology. Boston does
> not strike me as particularly religious any more than Silicon Valley.
>
> Further, while many scientists are religious, it reflects their
> upbringing and culture, more than some epiphany that ignites their
> spiritual longings.
>
> Here's a new way to do things: Make it FORBIDDEN to instruct,
> indoctrinate and train children in any religious or spiritual thought.
> When they turn 18 they're taught about religion and then they can decide
> what course to take in their lives.
>
> Of course the basic survival mechanism of most religions is to get 'em
> when they are very young and keep 'em on the hook by whatever means
> including the fear of eternal damnation, burning, etc.
>
> Powerful brainwashing, that.
>
Ok, IF you will agree that they not be taught any form of scientific
method as well. Fair is fair.
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 4:56 pm
From: Twibil
On Apr 12, 12:24 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
>
>
> Of course the basic survival mechanism of most religions is to get 'em
> when they are very young and keep 'em on the hook by whatever means
> including the fear of eternal damnation, burning, etc.
>
> Powerful brainwashing, that.
But I'm here to tell you that it doesn't work worth a damn <g> on a
kid who keeps asking questions that the teachers can't -or won't-
answer.
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 5:16 pm
From: Peter Irwin
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> Here's a new way to do things: Make it FORBIDDEN to instruct,
> indoctrinate and train children in any religious or spiritual thought.
> When they turn 18 they're taught about religion and then they can decide
> what course to take in their lives.
I don't get how this is even possibly reasonable.
When a child asks "why is tonight different from all other nights?"
without prompting (and they will ask some such questions without
prompting), do you have to tell them that you are forbidden to
answer that question until they are 18 because of the Alan Browne law?
Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb.net
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 5:20 pm
From: Jürgen Exner
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> It certainly is. Where did you get your list of scientifically and
>> technologically advanced religious nations from? The only one I can
>> think of is the US, which is generally regarded as strangely anomalous
>> in that respect.
>>
>Germany, Italy, Greece, UK, Australia, Spain, France, need I continue?
Is this meant for scientific/technological leadership or for
particularly religious countries?
I'm asking because I can see some countries for either category but none
that would fit both.
jue
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 5:21 pm
From: tony cooper
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:56:11 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
<nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 12, 12:24 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course the basic survival mechanism of most religions is to get 'em
>> when they are very young and keep 'em on the hook by whatever means
>> including the fear of eternal damnation, burning, etc.
>>
>> Powerful brainwashing, that.
>
>But I'm here to tell you that it doesn't work worth a damn <g> on a
>kid who keeps asking questions that the teachers can't -or won't-
>answer.
Alan's suggestion - tell them nothing until they are 18 - has the same
basic flaw. The best way to interest a child in something is to
refuse to answer any questions they have about it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 5:30 pm
From: Jürgen Exner
Alan Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Here's a new way to do things: Make it FORBIDDEN to instruct,
>indoctrinate and train children in any religious or spiritual thought.
>When they turn 18 they're taught about religion and then they can decide
>what course to take in their lives.
Actually I strongly disagree. In your scenario they have nothing to base
their decision on.
A much better approach would be to teach them religion from the
beginning, maybe 7th or 9th grade. But teach them about _ALL_ religions,
from Greek mythology over Druidism, Shinto, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Islam,
Christianity, to African, American and Australian native believe
systems.
Then and only then they have a chance to compare and make an educated
decision for themself. And also to place religion as such in its right
spot.
jue
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 5:35 pm
From: Jürgen Exner
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>Who gave you the right to define my terms? To ME a 'rabid
>environmentalist' IS one who goes so far as to advocate extermination of
>humans, and return of the earth to the animals.
No need to advocate.
"Good Morning, Mr. Moon".
"Good Morning, Lady Earth, how are you today?"
"Not well, I'm afraid. I think I caught a bad case of Homo Sapiens."
"Oh, don't worry, that will take care of itself soon."
jue
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Printing Grayscale in Color?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/13dafa8c16008c2d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 2:55 pm
From: Pat
On Apr 12, 10:24 am, Mark Franzels <markfranz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 9:39 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 6:22 am, Mark Franzels <markfranz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 12, 9:08 am, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > Mark Franzels wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 11, 6:03 pm, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >> Mark Franzels wrote:
> > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > >>> I noticed something weird.
> > > > >>> I converted a photo into grayscale in photoshop.
> > > > >>> I tried to print the grayscale photo using a printer
> > > > >>> with black ink enable only versus default.
> > > > >>> There is difference between them. The
> > > > >>> one where "black ink only" is NOT specified
> > > > >>> produced more detailed greyish image. But
> > > > >>> then isn't it that in grayscale image, it is
> > > > >>> supposed to be made up of pure black and
> > > > >>> white. How come the printer produced
> > > > >>> different outputs if it uses all colors to print
> > > > >>> the grayscale versus using entirely black
> > > > >>> ink??
> > > > >> Most printers without dedicated monochrome ink in various "strengths"
> > > > >> use blends of coloured ink to produce lighter shades. It's critical
> > > > >> that the right amount of each colour is applied, or the print may have a
> > > > >> colour cast, and typically that colour cast will vary between dark and
> > > > >> light shades. That said, with care quite good results can be obtained
> > > > >> from some colour printers (but often the result is quite bad).
> > > > >> Printing just with "full strength" black only, then the printer can't
> > > > >> produce as much detail in lighter areas, as there are limits to minimum
> > > > >> droplet size and placement.
> > > > >> Printers with dedicated monochrome inks usually have three or more black
> > > > >> inks, usually called "light black" and "light light black" etc. The
> > > > >> higher end printers also usually have black ink which is as neutral as
> > > > >> possible, made with a little blue added to offset the brownish-yellow of
>
> > > > > How about laser printers with black only toner. Do you
> > > > > called it with black as neutral as possible? I just noticed
> > > > > that using the same file in grayscale. The laser printer
> > > > > prints it much better than an inkjet printer with setting
> > > > > of "use black ink only". Why is that? It seems for
> > > > > purely black output. The laser printer is more optimized
> > > > > than an inkjet set at black ink only, agree? But why.
> > > > > Thanks.
>
> > > > It probably varies between printer, but a laser optimised to use black
> > > > toner might be able to place toner more accurately than the inkjet.
> > > > If you've got a Canon inkjet, some models use dye inks for colour photo
> > > > printing, and a pigment ink for black for text only printing (more
> > > > waterproof and less prone to bleed than dye based ink on uncoated
> > > > papers). At a guess, when switched to black only, it's using the
> > > > pigment ink, and the nozzles/head used are probably not capable of
> > > > producing small droplet sizes, or the printer "assumes" text, where high
> > > > dpi isn't needed. The three main makers (Epson, Canon, and HP) use
> > > > significantly different methods to vary droplet size.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > It's an HP specifically HP Deskjet 910 with the most
> > > cheapest ink.. the black cartridge is model HP CB314
> > > that only costs $5 and it can print up to 500 pages.
> > > So I guess the nozzles are made gross? What can
> > > you say about other HP cartridges especially
> > > black, does it use pigments or dye? How can I
> > > know what it is? Why, when you use normal
> > > inkjets and set the ink to print in black cartridge
> > > only, is it supposed to produce grayscale the
> > > same shades as that of dedicated monochrome
> > > laser printers?
>
> > Actually, I think you have so many variable going on that you couldn't
> > find one good reason if you tried. For example, a black from an
> > inkjet on regular paper is nowhere near as black as a laser. Part of
> > it is that the laser puts down 100% color and the inkjet needs some
> > sort of carrier. Also, ink absorbs and laser does not. Then there's
>
> What carrier are you talking about and what has it got to do
> with inkjet printing?
An inkjet uses ink. The pigment needs a carrier -- usually water --
to get it onto the paper. That then either evaporates off or absorbs
in (or both). It goes into the paper whereas a laser is bonded to the
surface and doesn't absorb.
>
> > the different reflective nature of the systems. It also probably has
> > something to do with putting down more/better material to absorb light
> > if you use colors as well as black.
>
> What more/better material to absorb light? Do you mean
> the printed output or something inside the printer?
Vision is reflected light. White is all of the colors in more or less
the same quantity. Black is not a color. Black is where all light is
absorbed. A thin later of ink/paint/anything might let light reflect
off of the surface below it. Then it won't look as black as denser
layer of ink might. That's why when an inkjet starts to run out of
color, for the first little bit the color looks lighter (and then
disappears).
If you use colored ink as well as black, you are putting down more
material to absorb light.
>
> I think it has to do with marketing stragegy too. If people can
> just use black to print grayscale, their color cartridge
> may not sell like pancakes.. instead they design the printers
> in such a way that most of the time you need color to
> print some black shade. When I printed in purely blank
> ink, all the subtle shadings are not printed, even pure
> text from a magazine in PDF is not printed black, but
> very faded black, so even if printing a normal black fonts.
> The manufacturers make sure the colors would be used
> so they can earn profit from it.
>
> All HP inks have heads on the the cartridge right? Mabye
> the nozzles in my HP blank ink cartridge are only low
> res, that's why it is very cheap at $5 and can
> supposedly print 500 pages... what it doesn't tell
> you is 500 pages of very faded text that can give
> you severe eyestrain just by reading it. I wonder
> what about those more expensive HP black in
> cartridge.. do they print the subtle shadings well.
> (note: If anyone has experience in printing HP
> black ink only and comparing the output to
> the laser, let me know. Thanks.)
I don't think inkjets are a dark and if you use cheap paper, they are
no wheres nears as sharp.
I used to use a black-only inkjet -- the Deskjet 500. IIRC it did
okay but you would be comparing it to dot-matrix at the time. Back
then, a lot of photocopiers weren't all that hot, either.
To test your printer hypothesis, just wait for a color cartridge to
get low. The design something that is solid color red, blue, and
yellow -- say a third of a sheet each. Just run it until you run out
of ink on all colors. Then try printing some black text. That will
show you what the black ink is doing.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> > On my color laser, it gives you the option to go one of thee ways: CMY
> > +K; K; or K overprint.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 4:30 pm
From: Mark Franzels
On Apr 13, 1:43 am, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Mark Franzels wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 9:08 am, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >> Mark Franzels wrote:
> >>> On Apr 11, 6:03 pm, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> Mark Franzels wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>> I noticed something weird.
> >>>>> I converted a photo into grayscale in photoshop.
> >>>>> I tried to print the grayscale photo using a printer
> >>>>> with black ink enable only versus default.
> >>>>> There is difference between them. The
> >>>>> one where "black ink only" is NOT specified
> >>>>> produced more detailed greyish image. But
> >>>>> then isn't it that in grayscale image, it is
> >>>>> supposed to be made up of pure black and
> >>>>> white. How come the printer produced
> >>>>> different outputs if it uses all colors to print
> >>>>> the grayscale versus using entirely black
> >>>>> ink??
> >>>> Most printers without dedicated monochrome ink in various "strengths"
> >>>> use blends of coloured ink to produce lighter shades. It's critical
> >>>> that the right amount of each colour is applied, or the print may have a
> >>>> colour cast, and typically that colour cast will vary between dark and
> >>>> light shades. That said, with care quite good results can be obtained
> >>>> from some colour printers (but often the result is quite bad).
> >>>> Printing just with "full strength" black only, then the printer can't
> >>>> produce as much detail in lighter areas, as there are limits to minimum
> >>>> droplet size and placement.
> >>>> Printers with dedicated monochrome inks usually have three or more black
> >>>> inks, usually called "light black" and "light light black" etc. The
> >>>> higher end printers also usually have black ink which is as neutral as
> >>>> possible, made with a little blue added to offset the brownish-yellow of
> >>> How about laser printers with black only toner. Do you
> >>> called it with black as neutral as possible? I just noticed
> >>> that using the same file in grayscale. The laser printer
> >>> prints it much better than an inkjet printer with setting
> >>> of "use black ink only". Why is that? It seems for
> >>> purely black output. The laser printer is more optimized
> >>> than an inkjet set at black ink only, agree? But why.
> >>> Thanks.
> >> It probably varies between printer, but a laser optimised to use black
> >> toner might be able to place toner more accurately than the inkjet.
> >> If you've got a Canon inkjet, some models use dye inks for colour photo
> >> printing, and a pigment ink for black for text only printing (more
> >> waterproof and less prone to bleed than dye based ink on uncoated
> >> papers). At a guess, when switched to black only, it's using the
> >> pigment ink, and the nozzles/head used are probably not capable of
> >> producing small droplet sizes, or the printer "assumes" text, where high
> >> dpi isn't needed. The three main makers (Epson, Canon, and HP) use
> >> significantly different methods to vary droplet size.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > It's an HP specifically HP Deskjet 910 with the most
> > cheapest ink.. the black cartridge is model HP CB314
> > that only costs $5 and it can print up to 500 pages.
> > So I guess the nozzles are made gross? What can
> > you say about other HP cartridges especially
> > black, does it use pigments or dye?
>
> I think those cartridges are all dye based ink. That is a printer from
> the mid-late 1990s ? HP used to make some reliable gear.
> IIRC I had a Deskjet 910 printer years ago, and when printing in
I also have the HP 910 printer but these are not available
in the states... where do you live.. is it the same one as this
(pls. look at the picture)?
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?cc=us&docname=c01042881&dlc=en&lc=en
It is mentioned that "Product Availability 910 CB722A
Philippines, India, South Africa, Vietnam, Thailand,
Korea, Turkey, Chile"
> greyscale, it used a very coarse raster pattern for half tones. I think
> that more modern inkjets will be quite different.
When you said it used coarse raster pattern for half tones
when printing in greyscale.. do you mean black ink only
or all colors enabled? There is a setting in the HP tray
where you can use black ink only.
> For photo printing (colour), those old printers have truly terrible
> print fading problems, as well as zero water resistance.
Have you tried other HP models where they can print
grayscale in black ink that uses all shades? I'll change
my printer to these if there is one. Thanks.
Mark
>
>
>
> > How can I
> > know what it is? Why, when you use normal
> > inkjets and set the ink to print in black cartridge
> > only, is it supposed to produce grayscale the
> > same shades as that of dedicated monochrome
> > laser printers?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon & Nikon Image Stabilisation
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa42f50d8a88f1c8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 3:19 pm
From: "Paul B"
Thus spake Marco Tedaldi:
> Bob Larter schrieb:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>> []
>>>> BTW: Is phase-shift autofocussing open loop?
>>>
>>> I think the answer is "it depends".
>
>> If the lens is set to MF, it's open loop.
>>
> Here I disagree (I think the rest has well been explained in the link
> in another post) but Manual Focus is definitely "Closed Loop".
>
> There is no control by the camera at all, but by you. So how does
> manual focussing work?
> I look through the viefinder and see that the image is not in focus.
> My hand moves the focus Ring which changes the focus of the lens, te
> resulting image is looked at by me and a decide to focus further or
> stop focussing. That's a typical closed loop control.
>
> If you leave the human out it's neither open nor closed loop, it's no
> control at all. :-)
I'm not sure where the notion of an open loop crept in. The concept of an
open loop is like running up to a football, kicking it with the intention of
striking the back of a net. A servo system has some sort of feedback.
Depending on design the system maybe damped to stop overshoot by reducing
the bandwidth. If the loop cannot find a null, it effectively becomes
open-loop & a large offset applied to hunt across until the desired null is
found (& the loop closes) & if it isn't, will change sign or direction until
it does or is designed to give up rather than hunt again. Mechanical servos
are a lot more interesting than a purely electronic feedback circuits such
as a phased locked loops - the moving parts have inertia governed by their
mass.
http://flickr.com/photos/busb
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 4:10 pm
From: "Ken Hart"
"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:nov0u4d281ri2a33aho5j4qf55tk3j4l4l@4ax.com...
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember "Paul B" <me@privacy.net> saying
> something like:
>
>>Does any agree that both Canon & Nikon should fit sensor based image
>>stabilisation to their DSLRs? Lens based stabilisation may well be better
>>but is rather dependent on the lens having it to start with! So why not
>>have
>>the option of either?
>
> It'd be nice to have the choice, I agree. I bought a K10D mainly because
> of the in-body IS and the ability to turn all my manual glass into IS
> lenses was a major attraction. However, if I buy a FF Canon or Nikon, I
> might be tempted to buy at least one IS lens for it.
> I have no particular bias either way - it's a pity that many such
> discussions on the merits of such technology get bogged down into an
> either/or argument by fanbois.
I like the after-market image stabilization best- you know, the devices with
three legs and a 1/4"-20 bolt that threads into the bottom of the camera. I
think they are called "tripods".
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 5:30 pm
From: John McWilliams
Ken Hart wrote:
> "Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nov0u4d281ri2a33aho5j4qf55tk3j4l4l@4ax.com...
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> drugs began to take hold. I remember "Paul B" <me@privacy.net> saying
>> something like:
>>
>>> Does any agree that both Canon & Nikon should fit sensor based image
>>> stabilisation to their DSLRs? Lens based stabilisation may well be better
>>> but is rather dependent on the lens having it to start with! So why not
>>> have
>>> the option of either?
>> It'd be nice to have the choice, I agree. I bought a K10D mainly because
>> of the in-body IS and the ability to turn all my manual glass into IS
>> lenses was a major attraction. However, if I buy a FF Canon or Nikon, I
>> might be tempted to buy at least one IS lens for it.
>> I have no particular bias either way - it's a pity that many such
>> discussions on the merits of such technology get bogged down into an
>> either/or argument by fanbois.
>
> I like the after-market image stabilization best- you know, the devices with
> three legs and a 1/4"-20 bolt that threads into the bottom of the camera. I
> think they are called "tripods".
It's hell for sports, though.
--
john mcwilliams
==============================================================================
TOPIC: square negs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 4:12 pm
From: "Ken Hart"
"Dave Busch" <moc.toofgib@eriafresal> wrote in message
news:31hst4dkfcjmb01fhqvd4als9getgstutj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:26:21 +0100, "eugene" <eugene@home.com> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
> Back in the darkroom days, we could put the edge of a neg between our
> lips. The emulsion side would stick to one lip. Of course, it was
> pretty easy to tell the matte from shiny side by the enlarger light.
> In addition to avoiding reversing, you wanted the emulsion side
> closest to the paper, so that the light went directly to the
> photosensitive surface after already having passed through any
> imperfections in the film base. Theoretically, you'd want the
> emulsion side closest to the scanner for the same reason, and also
> because the imaging path of many non-CCD scanners has less
> depth-of-focus. As a practical matter, you probably won't notice an
> IQ difference from 120/220 film negs.
>
> -------------------------------------
> Everything I know, and then some:
> http://www.auctionmyths.com
If these is edge printing on the negatives, including arrows, turn the
negative so the arrow is pointing clockwise, and you are looking at the
emulsion side. As for which side goes up, my photography teacher some 35
years ago taught "emulsion faces emulsion" (the emulsion side of the
negative faces the emulsion side of the paper). In your case, the scanner
glass is the "emulsion"
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is there anybody here that can read?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c9335bfe34017e91?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 4:29 pm
From: "Ken Hart"
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:grngfi$pbr$1@news.motzarella.org...
> And if you throw em on the ground really hard, sometimes you
> could get em to flash for you?
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
>
> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49df1d28$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> frank wrote:
> [...]
>> fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...
>
> Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that
> rotated
> after each shot?
>
> --
> W
>
Magicubes had an 'explosive' charge in them to create the flash. In the base
of the 'cube was a little spring wire for each bulb. The camera had a
plunger that pushed the spring wire off of it's holder, it hit the charge,
and flashed. If you could jar the 'cube sufficiently to knock the spring off
it's holder, you got a flash. I never tried it (damn things were
expensive!), but I suspect that if you threw it against a hard object and it
hit top first, you could probably fire all four sides at once. The advantage
of the Magicube was that there was no battery required to fire, and hence no
concerns of a dead battery or corroded contacts.
The Magicubes were slightly larger and had a different base from the earlier
flashcubes. The flashcubes were basically four AG1 bulbs in a cube
container. I once
'inherited' an adaptor for flashcubes that mounted on a camera shoe, had a
PC sync cord and a battery (22.5V?). This one carried the Konica brand. Not
having much use for it, I sold it on eBay, and got $10 for it!
While on the subject of convenience-oriented flashbulbs, there was also the
FlipFlash. This was a unit with 8 (AG-1?) bulbs, 2-wide and 4-high. It had a
connector on each end that fit into the flipflash socket on the camera. The
top bulbs fired first, and as each bulb was used, the conductive path on the
internal circuit board was burned away so that the next bulb would fire.
After using the four top bulbs, you removed the unit, flipped it over, and
fired the other four bulbs. In a moment of rare engineering genius, the
designers set it up so that the bulbs fartherest away from the camera were
active, decreasing the red-eye effect. The FlipFlash was common on the later
Kodak Pocket Instamatics, also the Kodak Instant print cameras. Kodak also
came out with an electronic flash that would attach to these cameras and
sync through the flash socket.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 4:43 pm
From: "Ken Hart"
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49e0908a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> frank wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 5:19 am, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> frank wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...
>>> Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
>>> after each shot?
>>
>> Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
>> Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge.
>
> Yep, that's them.
>
>> Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them.
>
> That's news to me too. I used to zap them with a 9V battery to set them
> off for fun.
>
Magicubes had no electical connection. If you were zapping cube flashes with
a battery, you were zapping flashcubes. Althougth you could zap Magicubes by
pushing a small screwdriver into the base and tripping the trigger wire.
If you really what to have fun with flashbulbs, get some of the big bulbs
with the standard Edison/household screw-in base (either #5 or #25, I can
never remember which), screw it into a ceiling lamp (make sure it's turned
off!), then wait for someone to turn on the light. Keep in mind that the
bulb could shatter, start a fire, cause a heart attack, break up a marriage,
or other fun stuff!
As for Kodak's film in cartridge, first there was the 126 "Instamatic" size.
Twelve exposures to a roll, the film about the width of 35mm. There was a
sprocket hole for each square frame that caught a pawl inside the camera for
double exposure prevention. Neg size was about 25mmX25mm. After 126 size,
there was 110 "Pocket Instamatic" size. The cartridge was similar in shape,
except much narrower as the film was about 16mm wide. Again there was a
sprocket hole for each rectangular frame. Finally in the Kodak cartridge
saga was the APS size, but the less said about that the better!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best Photo Scanners
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa72ed087c841433?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 4:33 pm
From: ransley
On Apr 11, 8:05 am, Mark Franzels <markfranz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What's the best photo scanners that can give you
> all the hues.. all the shades.. all the subtle highlights.. and
> complexion.. and colors
> and definitions, etc.? DPIs of at least 300
> -1200 good enough because what is important
> is the scanning accurarcy.
>
> What kind of scanning sensors must one
> look for? Also good error noise corrections that
> can even remove the patterns in halftone scans.
>
> Is Stand-alone better or All-In-Ones?? All-In-Ones
> are printers with built in scanners. What's your
> experiences with scanners in All-in-Ones
> versus dedicated scanners?
>
> Mark
Read reviews, new , better and cheaper come out every day for home
use, which since you mention all in one units is what I think you are
looking for. I use a 4 yr old Canon mp 950 which is very good even
with kodachrome slides. Its all what you want to pay.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Close-Up is available for viewing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/21a334c20daf593b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 4:35 pm
From: "Bowser"
After a week delay due to a trip to geek hell, the fine submissions sent for
the Close Up mandate are on display here:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/closeup
I didn't have much of a chance to shoot over the past month, so be polite
and try to limit you laughter at my shots to several minutes, with maximun
SPL of 132db. Thank you.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 5:18 pm
From: tony cooper
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:35:31 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>After a week delay due to a trip to geek hell, the fine submissions sent for
>the Close Up mandate are on display here:
>
>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/closeup
>
>I didn't have much of a chance to shoot over the past month, so be polite
>and try to limit you laughter at my shots to several minutes, with maximun
>SPL of 132db. Thank you.
Commenting on the ones that interest me:
Alan Browne's Shower Head - Interesting subject. A good start for the
page because it's outside-the-box thinking for the mandate.
Alan (Browne?) - Garter Belt - vide supra.
Bowser - Flames - First he poor mouths, then he submits a very good
image.
Jim Kramer - Claws - Best of the bunch.
Commenting on the ones that confuse me:
Atheist Chaplain - Autos (both) - Were incorrect links used?
Critiquing:
Unknown Submitter - Bless the Child - The idea was good, but the gun
should have been pointed directly at the camera for the idea to work.
Yes, it might have been less recognizable as a gun without the top of
the barrel showing, but I think we would have known.
Flowers and bugs - Technically strong, but too predictable for the
mandate.
Backstory: I went to a florist and offered to purchase one
chrysanthemum to add something to the my little ivory figurine. I
explained why I wanted it, and the owner gave me the flower free of
charge.
In appreciation, I returned later with an 8" x 10" of the photograph.
The lady, not being as discerning about photography as the people in
this newsgroup, was quite excited.
There's a sub shop in the same strip mall, and I went by the florist's
a few days later after lunch. The photograph has been matted, framed,
and hung.
Finally...I am hung somewhere besides my own walls.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 12 2009 5:31 pm
From: Helen
On Apr 12, 8:18 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:35:31 -0400, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote:
> >After a week delay due to a trip to geek hell, the fine submissions sent for
> >the Close Up mandate are on display here:
> Unknown Submitter - Bless the Child - The idea was good, but the gun
> should have been pointed directly at the camera for the idea to work.
> Yes, it might have been less recognizable as a gun without the top of
> the barrel showing, but I think we would have known.
A mistake was made and my name was not added.
I tried it with the gun pointed directly at the camera but it didn't
work for me. I liked seeing that part of the gun. The way it's
pointed is still very threatening.
I saw this 10 year old child playing with a toy gun in the school
yard. I thought it a telling story of todays society.
Helen
==============================================================================
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
