Photoshop How To Use: Apr 20, 2009

Monday, April 20, 2009

[PSP-Snags] need Dreamweaver...Anyone??? Marcia

Hi all
I am taking a website course and my Dreamweaver is not working and I need a new copy...I
would appreciate any help.
Marcia

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
PSP-Snags Google group: http://groups.google.com/group/PSP-Snags
Send to: psp-snags@googlegroups.com
Uunsubscribe: psp-snags-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

http://groups.google.com/group/Cartoon-PSP * http://groups.google.com/group/Disney-Tubes * http://groups.google.com/group/PSP-Snags-Adult * http://I-Love-Tutorials.com/chat * http://I-Love-PSP.com * http://PSP.I-Love-Disney.com * http://I-Love-Cartoons.com * http://I-Love-Disney.com * http://KTimothy.com * http://Disney-Stationary.com * http://Disney-Kingdom.com * http://Disney-Clipart.com

This is a private email and is covered by TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 47, Sec. 1030 and Internet Privacy Law. Sharing done, within this group, is for personal use only - NOT FOR PROFIT
NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS INTENDED.
Group owner is not responsible for the sends/opinions of its members
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[fnftwo] New warp SB

Thanks,

Barry

letter by bjmehn

font TNR

tube share

Side Border

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 7 topics - digest

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Spring Pictures - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15229fadc7315e84?hl=en
* what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll - 6 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
* Nikon D40/80/90 MM Exposure Problems - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2cf34097ab39052c?hl=en
* New Mandate: Punography - 7 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
* Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
* Converting old laptop to PC monitor and digital frame... - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3009de7932c60dea?hl=en
* Automatic Synchronization - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/57b2d58f43b64865?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Spring Pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15229fadc7315e84?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:32 pm
From: Robert Coe

On 17 Apr 2009 22:26:37 GMT, "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote:
: Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
:
: http://tinyurl.com/dhwv88
:
: or
:
: http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
:
: Thanks for looking.
:
:
: Russell

When I try to view those images with IE7, they appear *extremely* OOF.
Shrinking them way down helps a little, but most of them still look pretty bad
and none look really good. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

Bob

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:20 pm
From: "Russell D."

me@mine.net wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:20:42 -0700, in rec.photo.digital John
> McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Sharon wrote:
>>> "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote in message
>>> news:74se0tF150vreU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
>>>>
>>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for looking.
>>> Very nice shots. Where were these taken?
>>>
>> Somewhere cold! I am betting Colorado or Utah....
>> And, agreed, nice stuff.
>
> Another reason not to go directly into the slideshow. From the gallery
> page:
>
> Apr 16, 2009
> Spanish Fork, UT
>

Thanks, all, for you comments. It was a mistake using the slide show
link. Here is the gallery link.

http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?feat=email#

I also should have been more specific in the critique that I was after.
I'm not very confident in what I'm doing in post processsng (I use GIMP)
and was wondering if the shots look OK. I didn't do a lot to
them--mostly white balance adjustment and sharpening. I'm trying to
learn how to use unsharp mask. Do any of them look over sharpened or
under sharpened? Any pointers on properly using unsharp mask?

Thank,

Russell

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:21 pm
From: "Russell D."

Robert Coe wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2009 22:26:37 GMT, "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote:
> : Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
> :
> : http://tinyurl.com/dhwv88
> :
> : or
> :
> : http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
> :
> : Thanks for looking.
> :
> :
> : Russell
>
> When I try to view those images with IE7, they appear *extremely* OOF.
> Shrinking them way down helps a little, but most of them still look pretty bad
> and none look really good. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
>
> Bob

Bob,

Try using the link to gallery that I just posted above.

Russell

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:02 pm
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:32:15 -0400, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>On 17 Apr 2009 22:26:37 GMT, "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote:
>: Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
>:
>: http://tinyurl.com/dhwv88
>:
>: or
>:
>: http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
>:
>: Thanks for looking.
>:
>:
>: Russell
>
>When I try to view those images with IE7, they appear *extremely* OOF.
>Shrinking them way down helps a little, but most of them still look pretty bad
>and none look really good. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
>
I looked at the gallery in Firefox, and none look at all out-of-focus.

In answer to Russell's comment, none looked overly-sharpened.
Photographs are unique, and the subject matter determines which can
stand more sharpening than others. Snow-covered objects absorb a lot
of sharpening because the major content is soft.

Crisp and edgy works with the subject matter.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:46 pm
From: "Charles"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:gYyOwpJz7I7JFAS9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
> What is "full frame"?

An "old" standard based on 35mm film, which is fading toward extinction (the
film itself is, but not the size). There are lots of lenses out there that
were designed for 35mm, so the standard and the term "full frame" will
outlive it roots.

Railroad track spacing can be traced back to Roman times. It's the way
technology progresses.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:04 pm
From: Robert Coe

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:57:43 +0200, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com>
wrote:
: On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:04:19 +0100, Chris H wrote:
:
: > Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
:
: There are a couple of advantages to the 36x24mm format, and to larger
: sensors in particular:
:
: - All lenses developed for analog cameras will still work at their full
: potential.
: - You get a shallower depth of field to play with.
: - Larger sensors capture more light, which increases resolution and/or
: decreases noise.
:
: Ofcourse, the main disadvantages are cost, size and weight of the system.
: It's not a marketing gimmick, bot it's not necessarily better either. The
: choice depends on your needs/wishes.

All this is a manufactured debate over terminology, not over actual equipment,
except in one respect: the once plausible argument that lenses designed for a
"35mm" film camera would work equally well on a "full frame" digital. But
changes in metering and autofocus technology, as well as the introduction of
image stabilization, have marginalized the utility of those old lenses.

So as a practical matter, I think the debate now is indeed about terminology
only, and "full frame" means whatever the term's users say it does. I think we
should graciously accept Chris's assertion that his original post wasn't a
troll. But the next time somebody brings the issue up in that form, it
probably will be.

Bob

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:26 pm
From: Me

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
>> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
>> pedants arguing.
>
> No, it's the image quality, stupid.
>
It's the "potential" image quality, and relative to a user's needs.
I've just had the pleasure of using a Canon 5dII with 17-40l and 16-35l
Mk II (as well as longer f/l "l") lenses over the past week, alongside
my old "crop sensor" camera with dirt-cheap Sigma 10-20.
It's possible that there's some slight advantage centre-frame in detail
from the 12mp vs 21mp. But edge performance of both the 16-35 and 17-40
was worse (lenses set 18mm on Fx, 12mm on Dx). The 17-40 was better for
edge performance than the 16-35, even though half the price - that
surprised me. A disclaimer that I'd used the 17-40 on my 5d Mk I, and
come to the conclusion then that there was no advantage over 12mp Dx at
base ISO.
With 24-105 and 70-200, I could see some small improvement in resolution
over 12mp Dx, at printed crops equivalent to about 24x16 inch prints.
Smaller than that, and there's really no point to FX or 20+ mp /for my
needs/ - and I don't believe that my needs are unusual, even for
"serious" photography.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:36 pm
From: ray

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:04:19 +0100, Chris H wrote:

> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>

Hmmmmm. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck and
smells like a duck - it could be a duck.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:54 pm
From: "whinee"

Full frame is the fossilized paradigm of a vintage 1920s Leica permanently
embedded in pea brains of those who do not understand what they are talking
about.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:15 pm
From: Allen

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> What with Dxo (RAW processor) and Photoshop it seems irrelevant with
>> most of the pro-sumer and better DSLRs that the DX frame size is not the
>> same as the 35mm frame size.
>
> It is quite relevant if you care about producing medium format quality
> prints.
>
> There is a difference in image quality that is significant for the people
> who need it or want it. For 12x18" and larger prints, 21MP in FF is real
> nice. If you don't need the print size, you can use a smaller format.
>
>> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
>> pedants arguing.
>
> No, it's the image quality, stupid.
>
> And, sorry, but here _you_ are the one making a pedantic argument. The
> linguistic term "full frame" has a well defined meaning (the size of a full
> 24x36mm 35mm frame), and you are trying to break it up and insist it be used
> by your definition to mean any format. That's silly, simply because the term
> wouldn't mean anything then.
>
Actually, the 24x36 mm was originally "double frame". The standard 35 mm
movie frame was 18x24 mm. In the 1930s and probably later there were
several single-frame (18X24 mm) still cameras made, most famously (or
perhaps infamously) the Univex Mercury. One problem, in addition to the
decreased image quality, was that the camera had to be held vertically
to make a horizontal shot. This is History of Photography 101 lecture
for 4-20-09.
Allen

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D40/80/90 MM Exposure Problems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2cf34097ab39052c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:02 pm
From: Me

Focus wrote:

>
> »»Any P&S peace of shit can get an exposure like that without any
> compensation, but a camera system that costs at least 5 times as much con
> not.««
> And that's the bottom line.
>
> I wish some people learn how to read and stop trying to teach.
>

P&S cameras can meter from sensor data - not TTL sensors separate from
the imaging sensor as is the case with DSLRs (excl LV mode). So in that
case it's relatively easy to read sensor data before taking the shot,
and to adjust exposure accordingly.

Even if you're right (which I admit is possible) that the d90 matrix
system needs "tweaking" via a firmware fix, I'm still pretty sure that
the basis of your problem is that you've gone from a D300 to a D90.
Nikon put a cheaper 420 pixel sensor TTL metering system in the D50, and
AFAIK have retained that cheaper system in all consumer dslrs ever since
- IIRC the D70s was the last consumer dslr they made with the full 1005
pixel sensor. If it didn't make a difference, then they wouldn't have
retained the 1005 pixel sensor in their higher end models.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Punography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:08 pm
From: "Frank ess"

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a
>>>> naked girl with a pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for
>>>> sure...
>>>
>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>> would be language-independent.
>
>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without
>> language... and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even
>> in French. I've heard the word 'chat' used in France to describe a
>> womans....!
>
> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I
> guess it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical
> problem I think purely in terms of mental images of things
> interacting with one another. Not only are no words involved, but
> it can be quite hard to find the words to describe what can be
> easily seen in the mind's eye. It's also famously the case that
> musical thinking can be very detailed and precise yet often
> impossible to put into words.
>
> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.

I guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun that
does not depend on words.

Please? More than one, if you got 'em.

Thank you.

--
Frank ess

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:41 pm
From: Alan Browne

Leon@here.com wrote:

> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've heard the
> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!

Chatte, actually. (feminine of chat) or "Minou".

With Minou being the more acceptable 'slang' and
'chatte' being the obscene.

--
-- 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 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:24 pm
From: George Kerby

On 4/20/09 6:08 PM, in article
bISdnSMPQqzGnXDUnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Frank ess"
<frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>
>
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a
>>>>> naked girl with a pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for
>>>>> sure...
>>>>
>>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>>> would be language-independent.
>>
>>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without
>>> language... and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even
>>> in French. I've heard the word 'chat' used in France to describe a
>>> womans....!
>>
>> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I
>> guess it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
>> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical
>> problem I think purely in terms of mental images of things
>> interacting with one another. Not only are no words involved, but
>> it can be quite hard to find the words to describe what can be
>> easily seen in the mind's eye. It's also famously the case that
>> musical thinking can be very detailed and precise yet often
>> impossible to put into words.
>>
>> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
>> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.
>
> I guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun that
> does not depend on words.
>
> Please? More than one, if you got 'em.
>
> Thank you.

<http://www.lifeisajoke.com/pictures388_html.htm>

You are welcome.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:26 pm
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:24:47 -0500, George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>On 4/20/09 6:08 PM, in article
>bISdnSMPQqzGnXDUnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Frank ess"
><frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a
>>>>>> naked girl with a pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for
>>>>>> sure...
>>>>>
>>>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>>>> would be language-independent.
>>>
>>>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without
>>>> language... and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even
>>>> in French. I've heard the word 'chat' used in France to describe a
>>>> womans....!
>>>
>>> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I
>>> guess it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
>>> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical
>>> problem I think purely in terms of mental images of things
>>> interacting with one another. Not only are no words involved, but
>>> it can be quite hard to find the words to describe what can be
>>> easily seen in the mind's eye. It's also famously the case that
>>> musical thinking can be very detailed and precise yet often
>>> impossible to put into words.
>>>
>>> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
>>> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.
>>
>> I guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun that
>> does not depend on words.
>>
>> Please? More than one, if you got 'em.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
><http://www.lifeisajoke.com/pictures388_html.htm>
>
>You are welcome.

All visual puns depend on words. It is the words that the visual
suggests that makes the pun.

If we didn't know the words associated with the visual on the link, it
would be neither a pun nor amusing.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:33 pm
From: Leon@here.com

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:41:35 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

>Leon@here.com wrote:
>
>> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've heard the
>> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!
>
>Chatte, actually. (feminine of chat) or "Minou".
>
>With Minou being the more acceptable 'slang' and
>'chatte' being the obscene.

I'm afraid my French spelling is not too good!

In Quebec I've neard people refer to "castor" which I think is "beaver"...
similar meaning?

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:40 pm
From: Leon@here.com

On 20 Apr 2009 10:33:37 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
>>>> pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
>>>
>>>A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>>would be language-independent.
>
>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without language...
>> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've heard the
>> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!
>
>I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I guess
>it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
>example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical problem
>I think purely in terms of mental images of things interacting with
>one another. Not only are no words involved, but it can be quite hard
>to find the words to describe what can be easily seen in the mind's
>eye. It's also famously the case that musical thinking can be very
>detailed and precise yet often impossible to put into words.

They say we use 2 halves of our brain differently, one for language and one for
graphics. I confess I'm better at graphics than language! When someone asks me
to explain what I mean, I often grab a pencil and paper to draw what I mean. I
always thought it was because I didn't know the words!

>The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
>purely visual puns that do not depend on words.

I suppose... I'm a big Dali fan... but words could still be used to explain the
painting, but the image is required.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:07 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-04-20 18:40:26 -0700, Leon@here.com said:

> On 20 Apr 2009 10:33:37 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
>>>>> pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
>>>>
>>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>>> would be language-independent.
>>
>>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without language...
>>> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've heard the
>>> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!
>>
>> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I guess
>> it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
>> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical problem
>> I think purely in terms of mental images of things interacting with
>> one another. Not only are no words involved, but it can be quite hard
>> to find the words to describe what can be easily seen in the mind's
>> eye. It's also famously the case that musical thinking can be very
>> detailed and precise yet often impossible to put into words.
>
> They say we use 2 halves of our brain differently, one for language and one for
> graphics. I confess I'm better at graphics than language! When someone asks me
> to explain what I mean, I often grab a pencil and paper to draw what I mean. I
> always thought it was because I didn't know the words!
>
>> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
>> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.
>
> I suppose... I'm a big Dali fan... but words could still be used to explain the
> painting, but the image is required.

Hence "Persistance of Time"
http://uofugeron.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/dali-persistence-of-time.jpg

Regards,
Savageduck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:14 pm
From: RichA

With film, and its low resolution (most of it) this was allowable.
But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33903

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:47 pm
From: "whinee"

The EVF is the future, whether you want it or not.
It is cheaper to manufacture electronic viewing systems than traditional
mechanical/optical hybrids.
Cost and not technical issues will dictate future camera design.
The coming generations of photographers will move up to SLRs from EVF P&S
cameras and will have no idea what they are missing by not looking directly
through the lens and seeing the exact same light that the image capture
device will see.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Converting old laptop to PC monitor and digital frame...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3009de7932c60dea?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:48 pm
From: zalek

I have a very old working Dell laptop. On ebay it is worth $30-50 -
but screen is perfect. I saw some sites which use whole laptop to
convert it to a digital frame, but I would like to use screen only,
without PC part. Also - I would like to use it from time to time as
screen monitor (using VGA cable).
Maybe someone knows about a such project - to remove screen, connect
it to some kind chip with SD,CF or USB flash drive?

Thanks,

Zalek

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:51 pm
From: "whinee"

Those digital frames you see in stores that display images off a memory card
are actually dedicated computers that do one thing and one thing only.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Automatic Synchronization
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/57b2d58f43b64865?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:16 pm
From: " Clo-Clo"

Any simple way to synchronize 2 or more (preferably identical) digital
cameras?

Synchronization of the order of 0,1 sec. or better?

The cameras can be cheap and simple (point'n'shoot) or more advanced (DSLR).

I will consider as I said the simplest solution.

Thanks.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:36 pm
From: "Jeff R."

Clo-Clo wrote:
> Any simple way to synchronize 2 or more (preferably identical) digital
> cameras?
>
> Synchronization of the order of 0,1 sec. or better?
>
> The cameras can be cheap and simple (point'n'shoot) or more advanced
> (DSLR).
>
> I will consider as I said the simplest solution.
>
> Thanks.

Simplest solution:
http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg

1) both thumbs under rail
2) right index finger on right shutter button
3) left index finger on left shutter button
4) sque-e-e-e-eze

Works for me.
http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-lookout-kia-ora-mnts.jpg

--
Jeff R.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:15 pm
From: " Clo-Clo"

"Jeff R." <contact.me@this.ng> wrote

> Simplest solution:
> http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg
>
> 1) both thumbs under rail
> 2) right index finger on right shutter button
> 3) left index finger on left shutter button
> 4) sque-e-e-e-eze
>
> Works for me.

> http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-lookout-kia-ora-mnts.jpg

Thanks but I was thinking about something that could be remote
controlled, my arms are too short, furthermore I am not too sure
about the synchronization within a small fraction of a second.

Also what do you do with your stereo pictures?

Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?

Finally why the latin about Constantin Huygens, Chris's Dad I believe?

==============================================================================

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

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll - 12 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
* Diff Nikon and Canon Lens System - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5f02839e1bcce9a3?hl=en
* I hate environmentalists - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
* Testing Forum - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1271e50f62d744e9?hl=en
* Spring Pictures - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15229fadc7315e84?hl=en
* life after Windows....April 23 new version of Ubuntu Linux, version 9.04,
also known as "Jaunty Jackalope," - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
* Focus! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d4b654a4398ea89d?hl=en
* "Black silicon" skeptics abound... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/906dd55a28649215?hl=en
* Being Forced Back To A Safe Distance With The 500/4!! - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/969efbf8ec7f8dc6?hl=en
* Close-Up is available for viewing - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/21a334c20daf593b?hl=en
* New Mandate: Punography - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en

== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:35 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Chris H wrote:
[]
> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR
> is "full frame" in its own system.

I prefer the DX size of DSLR as it provides me with lighter weight, more
compact and easier to carry lenses.

> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so
> why?

In almost all compact cameras there is no relationship, and a lot of the
population are quite happy taking and enjoying their photos with such
cameras.

Cheers,
David

== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:43 am
From: nospam

In article <gYyOwpJz7I7JFAS9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
<chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:

> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
> "full frame" in its own system.

you use olympus, right?

the term 'full frame' has meant a 35mm film sized frame, or 24 x 36mm
for a long time, well before digital. the term originated 50 years ago
when olympus came out with camera that had a frame size of 18mm x 24mm,
one half the size of a 35mm negative. olympus called it half frame and
referred to the standard 35mm camera as full frame. ironically, it's
usually the olympus 4/3rds users who argue the most that their system
should also be called full frame.

<http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/camera/pen.cfm>

> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?

zillions of existing lenses cover full frame and a larger sensor will
have better image quality than a smaller sensor so why not take
advantage of it?

== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:57 am
From: Robert Spanjaard

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:04:19 +0100, Chris H wrote:

> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?

There are a couple of advantages to the 36x24mm format, and to larger
sensors in particular:

- All lenses developed for analog cameras will still work at their full
potential.
- You get a shallower depth of field to play with.
- Larger sensors capture more light, which increases resolution and/or
decreases noise.

Ofcourse, the main disadvantages are cost, size and weight of the system.
It's not a marketing gimmick, bot it's not necessarily better either. The
choice depends on your needs/wishes.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:54 am
From: Chris H

In message <2D0Hl.16610$OO7.14114@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
writes
>Chris H wrote:
>[]
>> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
>> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR
>> is "full frame" in its own system.
>
>I prefer the DX size of DSLR as it provides me with lighter weight,
>more compact and easier to carry lenses.
>
>> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so
>> why?
>
>In almost all compact cameras there is no relationship, and a lot of
>the population are quite happy taking and enjoying their photos with
>such cameras.

That was what I thought for 98% of the P&S users. I was just thinking
about why the fuss at the DSLR end of the market as the two technologies
(DSLR and 35mm film) are completely dissimilar.

What with Dxo (RAW processor) and Photoshop it seems irrelevant with
most of the pro-sumer and better DSLRs that the DX frame size is not the
same as the 35mm frame size.

The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
pedants arguing. In reality the DSLR "frame" or sensor sizes are
completely separate to the 35mm film cameras other than the fact you
can usually use the 23mm lenses on the DSLR's

As far as I am concerned the DX format sensor in my DSLR is Full Frame
for that type of camera. Is there really any sensible reason why not?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:00 am
From: Chris H

In message <200420090843000310%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <gYyOwpJz7I7JFAS9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
><chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
>> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
>> "full frame" in its own system.
>
>you use olympus, right?

Wrong.

>the term 'full frame' has meant a 35mm film sized frame, or 24 x 36mm
>for a long time, well before digital.

For 35mm film. What about other larger or smaller formats?

> the term originated 50 years ago
>when olympus came out with camera that had a frame size of 18mm x 24mm,
>one half the size of a 35mm negative. olympus called it half frame and
>referred to the standard 35mm camera as full frame.

That was a film camera. Not a digital camera.

>ironically, it's
>usually the olympus 4/3rds users who argue the most that their system
>should also be called full frame.
>
><http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/camera/pen.cfm>

Not seen that. Not had an Olympus camera either.

>> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
>
>zillions of existing lenses cover full frame and a larger sensor will
>have better image quality than a smaller sensor so why not take
>advantage of it?

Fair enough but it does not answer my question. The "full frame"
referred to 35mm FILM cameras. Digital is completely different other
than the similarity in size and external appearance to 35mm cameras and
the fact that most can sue the lenses originally for 35mm film cameras

SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
connected to the 35mm film size.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:08 am
From: nospam

In article <CZdWAOLPwJ7JFAn8@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
<chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:

> Fair enough but it does not answer my question. The "full frame"
> referred to 35mm FILM cameras.

so what? 24x36mm is full frame. it doesn't matter if it's kodachrome,
velvia or cmos.

> Digital is completely different other
> than the similarity in size and external appearance to 35mm cameras and
> the fact that most can sue the lenses originally for 35mm film cameras

and that's fairly substantial.

> SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
> connected to the 35mm film size.

many digital cameras have very different sensor sizes than film,
including most p&s and certainly cellphone cameras.

== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:10 am
From: Jürgen Exner

Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
>What is "full frame"?
>Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
>cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
>film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc

All correct. But by general convention and consensus the 24 × 36mm is
considered 'the' full frame format because it is by far the most
commonly film format.

>So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
>particular film size?

Because then you can make best use of existing equipment like existing
lenses.

>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?

Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
"digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
using those lenses on a traditional film camera.

>Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?

Technically: no!
Practically: yes.

jue

== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:17 am
From: Derge

On Apr 20, 10:04 am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)

Hahaha. Good luck.

>
> What is "full frame"?
> Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
> cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
> film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc.

I know this is rhetorical, but I'm going to answer it anyway: It's a
photosensitive substrate measuring 36mm by 24mm.

>
> There are also several formats of digital sensor size.
>
> All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
> their own design parameters.

Yes, it's a misnomer, but that's irrelevant. In contemporary parlance,
everyone knows what "full frame" means, and it doesn't mean that.

>
> So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
> particular film size? Especially when all the lenses for the film
> cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?

Because the format was popular and some of that inertia has carried
over into the digital age. Let's be clear about one thing from the get-
go: Settling upon any frame size is a tangle of interrelated
compromises. Large format photography will probably always be a niche
market, because for most people, most of the time, the increase in DOF
control and absolute IQ is just not worth what they give up in
flexibility. By the same token, the failure of APS film probably can't
be accounted for by lousy marketing alone. For some reason, people
really liked the 35mm format. It goes without saying that legacy 35mm
lenses outnumber DX or EF-S or "digital" or what-have-you lenses, even
today.

> However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
> grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
> format market to use a larger sensor. But does it need to be the same
> as the old 35mm film size? On that score the Medium format cameras do
> have digital backs.
>
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
>

Any argument you could make in defense of "full frame" sensors on
technical grounds would apply equally to any sensor size: The
relationships between noise and DOF work in both directions. There
isn't any reason they need to operate in discrete steps, except that
camera manufacturers need to choose *some* size for their sensors,
obviously, or else they wouldn't be able to fabricate them. What
exactly are you objecting to here? What do you propose as an
alternative?

== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:29 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Chris H wrote:
[]
> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of
> the pedants arguing. In reality the DSLR "frame" or sensor sizes are
> completely separate to the 35mm film cameras other than the fact you
> can usually use the 23mm lenses on the DSLR's

I wouldn't have said "egos" or even "pedants". There are some advantages
and some disadvantages to the bigger sensor, so it's useful to have a
quick way of distinguishing them.

> As far as I am concerned the DX format sensor in my DSLR is Full Frame
> for that type of camera. Is there really any sensible reason why not?

I suspect that history and current usage dictates that 36x24mm = "Full
Frame", but for your camera, and mine, "full frame" just means not
cropping. Note the initial capitals!

Indeed, there are some DSLRs and some Compact cameras which do offer
"reduced frame" as a way of cropping (for using DX lenses or gaining
apparent focal length). Some Nikon DSLRs and some Panasonic compacts do
this.

Cheers,
David

== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:33 am
From: "David J. Littleboy"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
> What with Dxo (RAW processor) and Photoshop it seems irrelevant with
> most of the pro-sumer and better DSLRs that the DX frame size is not the
> same as the 35mm frame size.

It is quite relevant if you care about producing medium format quality
prints.

There is a difference in image quality that is significant for the people
who need it or want it. For 12x18" and larger prints, 21MP in FF is real
nice. If you don't need the print size, you can use a smaller format.

> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
> pedants arguing.

No, it's the image quality, stupid.

And, sorry, but here _you_ are the one making a pedantic argument. The
linguistic term "full frame" has a well defined meaning (the size of a full
24x36mm 35mm frame), and you are trying to break it up and insist it be used
by your definition to mean any format. That's silly, simply because the term
wouldn't mean anything then.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 10:16 am
From: "Deep Reset"

"Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lv6pu4herl4apfgjc4f1fvr3mht2a1jdo9@4ax.com...
> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>>
>>What is "full frame"?
>>Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
>>cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
>>film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
>
> All correct. But by general convention and consensus the 24 × 36mm is
> considered 'the' full frame format because it is by far the most
> commonly film format.
>
>>So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
>>particular film size?
>
> Because then you can make best use of existing equipment like existing
> lenses.
>
>>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>
> Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
> "digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
> the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
> manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
> special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
> illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
> using those lenses on a traditional film camera.

Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?

Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?

Not pretty.

== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 10:23 am
From: nospam

In article <bd-dnfwAAfObM3HUnZ2dnUVZ8sCdnZ2d@bt.com>, Deep Reset
<DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
> > "digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
> > the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
> > manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
> > special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
> > illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
> > using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>
> Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?

he wasn't referring specifically to dx lenses.

> Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
>
> Not pretty.

depending on the lens, it may cover the full frame at some focal
lengths.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Diff Nikon and Canon Lens System
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5f02839e1bcce9a3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:46 am
From: nospam

In article <TB0Hl.12488$jZ1.7034@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, measekite
<inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:

> >> To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
> >> me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.
> >
> > <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20>
> >
> > sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
> > they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
> > (and that particular lens isn't cheap either).
>
> What exactly do you mean by lens failure.

the failures are listed in the link: zoom mechanism, calibration,
autofocus and stabilization for sigma.

> Is it just poor image quality
> or is the build quality so bad it just falls apart?

actually, some very old sigma lenses did fall apart.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I hate environmentalists
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:49 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49ec7ca8$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>> Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote
>>> connection to recreational photography here...
>>>
>> Good idea, you mean like your attacks on me, oh ye drug addict mit der
>> fried brain and unrecovered alcoholic? Don't bother replying as I no
>> longer read your demented rants.
>
> Well seeing as you reply to them, you obviously read them.
>
> PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
> who's watching this from Google Alerts!
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Shhhh, as long as he keeps his eyes shut, he thinks nobody will notice...

Take Care,
Dudley

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:57 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7530ntF162us4U1@mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Dudley Hanks <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:74ti5rF15228oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:44:30 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>>"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>news:qssiu454158m2nu31r560vl4d7nil294rk@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:45:53 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:1ckfu49hsv0m64smb1d55u6e9kv63sdimq@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>>>You need to distinguish between Divine Inspiration and it's
>>>>>>>inevitable
>>>>>>>implications, as opposed to the more mundane mortal version...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Inspiration is inspiration.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not when you are dealing with the Almighty...
>>>
>>>> So he's not so powerful he can create a word that retains its meaning
>>>> in his presence?
>>>
>>> Of course He could. But He wouldn't. Seems your theological education
>>> omitted the central fundamental topic of free will.
>
>> That's one of the problems with trying to say that the Bible is "the Word
>> of
>> God," or the "Words of God," or any other way you want to create a
>> connection between a man-made organization (the Church) or written
>> document
>> and the infallibility of an all-powerful authority...
>
>> But, hey, that hasn't stopped the zealots from trying for as long as
>> history's been recorded.
>
>> But, as I've noted in other posts, this is getting way to off topic. So,
>> if
>> you'd like to discuss it further, either e-mail me, or go to:
>
>> http://www.discussion.dudley-hanks.com/opinion
>
>> Or, find another, more appropriate group and point me towards it.
>
>> Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote
>> connection
>> to recreational photography here...
>
> I do try, but I think my mental AF is easily distracted. All it takes
> is a few twigs to move in front of the subject and the entire
> concentration focusses down on the twiggery and won't let go :-)
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm
>
>
>

Hey, I thought I was the only one with that cerebral firmware bug...

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Testing Forum
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1271e50f62d744e9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:52 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49ec7b93$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> I'm trying to set up a board where you won't have to register in order to
>> post messages and use polls. I've set up a couple of catagories, and
>> added a poll.
>>
>> For those who are looking for something to do, logging on and giving it a
>> quick test would be greatfully appreciated.
>>
>> The forum is located at:
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad
>>
>> And, a direct link to the poll is:
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad/index.php?PHPSESSID=c4686f23383ac7d69de3a88957b2dc3c&topic=2.msg2#new
>
> The results of the poll aren't a big surprise! ;^)
>
> PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
> who's watching this from Google Alerts!
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I know. I was in a hurry when I put it together, so I didn't get all
that creative. Just wanted something people could (hopefully) click on in
order to see if it works.

For some reason, I can't seem to get it to work for guests. But,
internally, it works quite well for members.

Take Care,
Dudley

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 10:06 am
From: me@mine.net

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:20:42 -0700, in rec.photo.digital John
McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>Sharon wrote:
>> "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote in message
>> news:74se0tF150vreU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
>>>
>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking.
>
>> Very nice shots. Where were these taken?
>>
>Somewhere cold! I am betting Colorado or Utah....
>And, agreed, nice stuff.

Another reason not to go directly into the slideshow. From the gallery
page:

Apr 16, 2009
Spanish Fork, UT

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:32 pm
From: Robert Coe

Bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: life after Windows....April 23 new version of Ubuntu Linux, version 9.
04, also known as "Jaunty Jackalope,"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 10:51 am
From: Kris Tonastik

On Apr 2, 8:54 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:t3t9t4pie45qgmtpdfbds3nkrlu75p71jh@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > William Black writes:
>
> >> Servers for most organisations tend to be specified in a project study
> >> written by the senior engineer or am engineering consultant hired in for
> >> the task, usually a Chartered Engineer in the appropriate
> >> specialisation.
>
> > A chartered engineer (or even a Chartered Engineer)? This must be Europe
> > you're talking about, where credentialism rules.
>
> >> The idea that they haven't heard of UNIX is laughable.
>
> > Unfortunately, there are a lot of people working in IT who haven't heard
> > of
> > UNIX. I regularly meet people in IT who think that there are no
> > mainframes,
> > even tough 75% of business data processing in the world is carried out by
> > mainframes.
>
> Most of the people senior enough to specify such systems were in
> the business long beforeWindowswas an option and probably
> leaned their trade on mainframes and minicomputers. I know I did.
>
> I rather miss Primos , it was rather a nice OS with better security
> and scheduling than any Unix system.
>
> Keith

......6502 assembler......

Canonical Looks To Clouds With Next Ubuntu Server

By Kevin McLaughlin, ChannelWeb

6:25 PM EDT Mon. Apr. 06, 2009
Canonical on April 23 will release the next version of Ubuntu Server,
version 9.04, also known as "Jaunty Jackalope," which includes
expanded virtualization and cloud computing capabilities.

Ubuntu Server 9.04 features a new version of KVM (Kernel-based Virtual
Machine) that facilitates live migration of virtual machines, as well
as broader cluster support for file serving and deeper integration
with Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT) systems, said Steve George, director of
support and services at Canonical.

Ubuntu Server 9.04 lets developers build applications for the Amazon
(NSDQ:AMZN) Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) and use Ubuntu as the
operating system and delivery platform, according to George. "The APIs
and delivery mechanism are compatible with EC2. Developers can build
an application and deploy it through Amazon, and select Ubuntu to be
the operating system layer," he said.

Ubuntu Server also includes clustering software for building private
computing clouds, a feature that's likely to appeal to large
organizations that have security policies that preclude the use of
public cloud infrastructure, George said. "You can take Ubuntu Server,
install it on number of servers in your data center and then set up
these servers to form a cloud. It's basically a cluster of systems
with a cloud controller on top," he said.

"This lets you set up your own computing cloud with whatever machines
you have handy in your own network," said Thor Mirchandani, president
of Presens Technologies, a Winston-Salem, N.C.-based solution
provider.

"Previously, you had to test in production and you had to set up a
server on Amazon and run it there. The clock would be ticking and you
would be charged," Mirchandani said. "But now, you can develop
applications in-house on private infrastructure and then deploy them
when they're ready."

Canonical already has a substantial number of users in the beta, and
plans are to beef up this functionality even further with the Ubtunu
Server 9.10 release that's slated for October, George said.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Focus!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d4b654a4398ea89d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 11:52 am
From: Bruce

Clayton Ramsey <cramsey@wherewithall.org> wrote:
>
>Don't worry about it Focus. What is happening is that the usual pack of
>full-time resident pretend-photographer role-playing newsgroup trolls have
>decided to use you for their "fun" this time.

Funny how that is an unusually accurate description of
both Focus/Sosumi and yourself.

Have a nice day, troll.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Black silicon" skeptics abound...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/906dd55a28649215?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 1:43 pm
From: Get lost

On Apr 20, 10:02 am, zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
> In article <7e166a02-4f14-4fb1-a907-041ab3b59...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >See Photonics-Spectra magazine letters section for Apr. Seems that
> >the Harvard team is "reluctant" to publish any solid figures on the
> >product's sensitivity and that the articles about it have all be "puff
> >pieces," perhaps fit for business magazines hawking stocks but not
> >scientific journals.
>
> SiOnyx had some inspiring offering. I hope it works out.
> Hee is what he told me.
>
> Our measured performance today (with very crude prototypes) routinely performs like what we describe on our webpage. There is
> tremendous skepticism about our technology and that is OK. What I can tell you is that we have validated our performance via
> independent measurements in NIST traceable Government and commercial labs.
>
> greg

They've got some kind of patent protection (though whether or not what
they are doing is new is also debatable) so why not publish actual
figures? Afraid their IPO might not be so rosy if the stuff doesn't
match the hype?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Being Forced Back To A Safe Distance With The 500/4!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/969efbf8ec7f8dc6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 2:36 pm
From: "Larry Thong"

Bob Larter wrote:

>> When a cat puts its whiskers in the sand you better step back to get
>> it in focus.
>>
>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Cat_Whisker.jpg>
>
> Well, that fish is about as dead as it gets.

Wrong! He's only been out of the water about a minute. He did swim away
after being put back in the water. Had to send him home to get bigger.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 2:34 pm
From: "Larry Thong"

whisky-dave wrote:

>> When a cat puts its whiskers in the sand you better step back to get
>> it in focus.
>>
>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Cat_Whisker.jpg>
>
> I cod do that too.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/698953895/

That'll work!!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Close-Up is available for viewing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/21a334c20daf593b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:09 pm
From: Draco

On Apr 12, 8:31 pm, Helen <helensilverb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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

When I saw this, it scared the heck out of me. several years ago a kid
pulled a real 9mm
on me and demanded my cash. Of course I gave it up or I wouldn't be
here.
The short DOF and the sharpness of the end of the barrel is what makes
this image so
powerful. If you ever had to stare down a gun before, this is how it
looks. The contrast
between the dark gun barrel and the background really helps create a
feeling
of a huge gun in your face. Well done but, scary as well.

Others I had the quick chance to look at were all very, well done. DOF
use
was made to give the images a sense of scale. The short DOF of the
circut
board gave an impression of great distance. The sharpness of the
insects and
flowers so that the photographers all, know their craft.

Good work by all. Keep it up.

One day I might be able to post some and write more.

Everyone have a great year,

Draco.

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:10 pm
From: Robert Coe

On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
: In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
:
: > BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
: > pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
:
: A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
: would be language-independent.

The concept of a language-independent pun is a challenge to the imagination.

Smartly moving even further afield ...
The unchallenged masters of puns should be the Chinese. Their language is so
full of homonyms that puns must pop up on a regular basis. Indeed, I read
somewhere that a popular Chinese word game is to see who can construct the
longest sentence that is absolutely ambiguous until the last syllable falls
into place.

Someone in this group must be fluent in Chinese. Is it really as pun-filled as
I imagine?

Bob (who wonders why this thread has to be so widely cross-posted, but is
reluctant to change it now, because he has no idea who's reading it where)

==============================================================================

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

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Contest With Cash
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5a530e4228a67e44?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 19 2009 10:06 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:d2TGl.24405$PH1.5274@edtnps82...
>
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:92c02603-50ec-44b0-b232-b8ca242cfbcd@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 7:31 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad/index.php?topic=5.0
>>
>> --
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>> --
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
> In the 50/50; who get's the other 50%
>
> If I collect the funds, host the event, set up the polling mechanism, and
> disperse winnings, I do...:)
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>Let me elaborate a bit...

I can assure the entrants a fair, transparent and impartial count of the
votes, with only the entrants casting ballots.

In order to make sure that everyone doesn't end up with a single vote, each
entrant would get two or three votes, depending on number of entries.

That should make a winner more likely.

However, in the event of a tie, the winner's share would go to support disk
space for the SI... (Eliminating much of the incentive to try to rig the
voting)

All transactions would be run through PayPal for accountability and
arbitration should there be any complaints.

I'm just thinking about it, so this isn't written in stone. Ideas are
welcome. Also, I have to check local gaming laws to see if it floats...

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The cat
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02f501584965a915?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 1:28 am
From: "MJK"

http://images-piegees.over-blog.com/article-30453719.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheap remote for Nikon Dxx
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d7be18a67e18073d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 2:39 am
From: Willy Eckerslyke

Pete D wrote:

> You can also get wired interval timers, brilliant bit of kit for under $50.

You can get wireless ones too.
I bought one called a GentLED for about 20 GB pounds. Great piece of
kit, thoroughly recommended.

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:22 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Dudley Hanks <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:74ti5rF15228oU1@mid.individual.net...
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:44:30 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:qssiu454158m2nu31r560vl4d7nil294rk@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:45:53 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1ckfu49hsv0m64smb1d55u6e9kv63sdimq@4ax.com...

>>>>>>You need to distinguish between Divine Inspiration and it's inevitable
>>>>>>implications, as opposed to the more mundane mortal version...
>>>>>
>>>>> Inspiration is inspiration.
>>>>
>>>>Not when you are dealing with the Almighty...
>>
>>> So he's not so powerful he can create a word that retains its meaning
>>> in his presence?
>>
>> Of course He could. But He wouldn't. Seems your theological education
>> omitted the central fundamental topic of free will.

> That's one of the problems with trying to say that the Bible is "the Word of
> God," or the "Words of God," or any other way you want to create a
> connection between a man-made organization (the Church) or written document
> and the infallibility of an all-powerful authority...

> But, hey, that hasn't stopped the zealots from trying for as long as
> history's been recorded.

> But, as I've noted in other posts, this is getting way to off topic. So, if
> you'd like to discuss it further, either e-mail me, or go to:

> http://www.discussion.dudley-hanks.com/opinion

> Or, find another, more appropriate group and point me towards it.

> Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote connection
> to recreational photography here...

I do try, but I think my mental AF is easily distracted. All it takes
is a few twigs to move in front of the subject and the entire
concentration focusses down on the twiggery and won't let go :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:38 am
From: Bob Larter

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
> news:2009041800084431729-savageduck@savagenet...
>> On 2009-04-17 23:43:30 -0700, John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:16:19 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-04-17 06:26:13 -0700, "whisky-dave"
>>>> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ysOFl.23805$PH1.12017@edtnps82...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm, divine flaws. However will the zealots dismiss them...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even when I was young and 'learnt' that jesus died for our sins,
>>>>> I couldn;t work out why God let King Herrod go around killing all those
>>>>> babies
>>>>> while looking for the baby Jesus, why didn't God just say he's over
>>>>> there
>>>>> in the stables don't kill all these innocent babies, which I assuemd
>>>>> they
>>>>> were
>>>>> all innocent, Jeus coudl have still have said to have died for ours
>>>>> sins.
>>>>> And then there's Brutus surely he's a hero, without him Jesus wouldn't
>>>>> have
>>>>> been
>>>>> caught and executed in the way he was.
>>>> "Brutus?" Could you mean that other plot villain Judas?
>>> Or maybe Bluto.
>> I like that. "The Popeye Bible," or perhaps "The Spinach Papers."
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Savageduck
>>
>
> SD, haven't you heard about Shakespeare's religious folios?

Did they involve spinach?

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:46 am
From: Bob Larter

HEMI-Powered wrote:
> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>> Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote
>> connection to recreational photography here...
>>
> Good idea, you mean like your attacks on me, oh ye drug addict mit
> der fried brain and unrecovered alcoholic? Don't bother replying as I
> no longer read your demented rants.

Well seeing as you reply to them, you obviously read them.

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:54 am
From: Bob Larter

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> wrote in message
> news:Xns9BF26778F8890ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131...
>> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>
>>> Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote
>>> connection to recreational photography here...
>>>
>> Good idea, you mean like your attacks on me, oh ye drug addict mit
>> der fried brain and unrecovered alcoholic? Don't bother replying as I
>> no longer read your demented rants.
>>
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry
>>
>> "The government is best which governs least" - Thomas Jefferson
>> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>> problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>
> Bit off more than you can chew?

Apparently so.

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:33 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>>In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>
>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
>>> pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
>>
>>A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>would be language-independent.

> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without language...
> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've heard the
> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!

I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I guess
it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical problem
I think purely in terms of mental images of things interacting with
one another. Not only are no words involved, but it can be quite hard
to find the words to describe what can be easily seen in the mind's
eye. It's also famously the case that musical thinking can be very
detailed and precise yet often impossible to put into words.

The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
purely visual puns that do not depend on words.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:24 am
From: Bob Larter

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:14:48 -0400, Bowser wrote:
>
>> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gs9sv2$f0r$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.spokane.wsu.edu/campusresources/aboutWSUSpokane/News_Events/
> images/NursingBuilding_construction.jpg
>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/
> Takapuna_Sentinel_Building_Construction.jpg
>>> Men in hard hats get it up!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christopher A. Young
>>> Learn more about Jesus
>>> www.lds.org
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> <jack@sprat.com> wrote in message
>>> news:t0mfu45t1vgj5akdtqqdgo172lu2aek3sl@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Think of all the puns available in porn!
>> A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
>>
>> Keep a stiff upper lip.
>>
>> More?
>
> A bird in the hand is worth getting in the bushes.

A bird in the hand means you have one in the bush...

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:59 am
From: Bob Larter

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
>>>> pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>> would be language-independent.
>
>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without language...
>> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've heard the
>> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!
>
> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I guess
> it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical problem
> I think purely in terms of mental images of things interacting with
> one another. Not only are no words involved, but it can be quite hard
> to find the words to describe what can be easily seen in the mind's
> eye. It's also famously the case that musical thinking can be very
> detailed and precise yet often impossible to put into words.
>
> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.

Indeed. But how many of us can compete with Salvadore Dali?

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:27 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:oNydnVmfSu_vAXbUnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@supernews.com...
> When a cat puts its whiskers in the sand you better step back to get it in
> focus.
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Cat_Whisker.jpg>

I cod do that too.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/698953895/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:53 am
From: Bob Larter

Larry Thong wrote:
> When a cat puts its whiskers in the sand you better step back to get it
> in focus.
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Cat_Whisker.jpg>

Well, that fish is about as dead as it gets.

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Endless stream of "me too" P&S crap released
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7437e6aec8662b70?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:36 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:RfWdnbIkx91KKnfUnZ2dnUVZ_j9i4p2d@giganews.com...
> "JohnD" <JD@thisis.invalid> wrote in
> news:gsdcad$ad3$1@news.motzarella.org:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>> Latest ones:
>>>
>>
>> Endless stream of "boo hoo" P&S (Pigheaded & Stupid) crap released --
>> by an idiot with a giant chip on his shoulder.
>>
>>
>>
>
> That implies P&S's have cost me something, they haven't. P&S's: Choosing
> cameras by their exterior colours, not their image quality.

I'd like the choice, nothijng wrong withy having differtn coloured camera,
any more than having different coloured cars, computers, curtains or cats.

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:23 am
From: Bob Larter

PDM wrote:
> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49e589f9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> measekite wrote:
>>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon
>>> Lens
>>> Line?
>>>
>>> Does it just boil down to the fact that each as a few lenses that are
>>> marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or
>>> is
>>> there a significant difference?
>> To really simplify things, Canon tends to be better at teles & Nikon tends
>> to be better at wide-angles. Other than that, neither is, in general,
>> significantly better than the other.
>>
> Suggest that Nikon has better quality lower cost lenses than Canon
> (particularly for the C / DX size sensor). You have to pay premium for a
> good lens from Canon. Canon has more lenses. There are some gaps in the
> Nikon line.
> PDM

I was assuming full-frame lenses. I don't have enough experience with
non-full-frame sensors to have an opinion.

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:31 am
From: Bob Larter

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:17:12 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
> : measekite wrote:
> : > Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
> : > Line?
> : >
> : > Does it just boil down to the fact that each as a few lenses that are
> : > marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or is
> : > there a significant difference?
> :
> : To really simplify things, Canon tends to be better at teles & Nikon
> : tends to be better at wide-angles. Other than that, neither is, in
> : general, significantly better than the other.
>
> Well, as Albert Einstein is supposed to have said, "Everything should be made
> as simple as possible, but not simpler." The complication is that there are
> very good third-party lenses at both ends of the spectrum. So for your Canon
> you might have the Sigma 10-20, and for your Nikon you might have the Sigma
> 50-150 f/2.8. Or similar lenses from Tamron, Tokina, et al.

To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:09 am
From: nospam

In article <49ec7941$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:

> To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
> me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.

<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20>

sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
(and that particular lens isn't cheap either).

also,

<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga>

Since day 1 the Sigma brand has always been a bit of a money loser
for us: they broke more frequently than the other brands.

Sigma lenses failed at a rate of 30% per year, compared to less than
5% for Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, and Zeiss.

We aren¹t going to stop renting Sigma entirely but we are going to
close out two lines (the 150-500 and 120-400) that have developed so
many problems as to be unusable.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:34 am
From: measekite

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:09:29 -0700, nospam wrote:

> In article <49ec7941$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
>> me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.
>
> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20>
>
> sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
> they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
> (and that particular lens isn't cheap either).

What exactly do you mean by lens failure. Is it just poor image quality
or is the build quality so bad it just falls apart?

>
> also,
>
> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga>
>
> Since day 1 the Sigma brand has always been a bit of a money loser for
> us: they broke more frequently than the other brands.
>
> Sigma lenses failed at a rate of 30% per year, compared to less than
> 5% for Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, and Zeiss.
>
> We aren¹t going to stop renting Sigma entirely but we are going to
> close out two lines (the 150-500 and 120-400) that have developed so
> many problems as to be unusable.

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:41 am
From: Bob Larter

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> I'm trying to set up a board where you won't have to register in order to
> post messages and use polls. I've set up a couple of catagories, and added
> a poll.
>
> For those who are looking for something to do, logging on and giving it a
> quick test would be greatfully appreciated.
>
> The forum is located at:
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad
>
> And, a direct link to the poll is:
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad/index.php?PHPSESSID=c4686f23383ac7d69de3a88957b2dc3c&topic=2.msg2#new

The results of the poll aren't a big surprise! ;^)

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:51 am
From: Bob Larter

Focus wrote:
> "Clayton Ramsey" <cramsey@wherewithall.org> wrote in message
> news:ke0nu4tkmckb0npmchd0fgtgplrhcpsg36@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:53:05 +0100, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote:
>>
>>> "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20090417011628.7f9b9510@bluemoon...
>>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:38:31 +0100
>>>> Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any item on the ever-longer list of things that Focus
>>>>> cannot understand is defined as "a bug".
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not knowledgeable about psychology, neurophysiology etc. but
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's particularly things he can't understand so much as
>>>> things that aren't as he thinks they should be - he seems to have a
>>>> very rigid world view, and has problems when reality doesn't match his
>>>> preconceptions. He has to dismiss or ignore anyone who points out his
>>>> flawed reasoning, because accepting that they may have valid views
>>>> would effectively be an admission that he doesn't have as firm a grip
>>>> on reality as he needs to believe that he does. Without any other
>>>> history I'd say autistic spectrum disorder, but as he said he's had
>>>> brain injury you'd have to consider that as at least a contributing
>>>> factor. The brain is remarkably good at recovering from injury, in
>>>> some cases it will re-task different areas to replace lost
>>>> functionality, but sometimes it simply provides "appropriate"
>>>> information without the underlying functionality, so that areas which
>>>> rely on that information have some chance of doing their job. That
>>>> can actually work quite well in simple familiar situations, but beyond
>>>> that it's a lottery whether the fabricated information will match the
>>>> actual situation that requires a response.
>>>
>>> Well, thank you Dr. Freud.
>>> For someone who opens his post with:
>>> " I'm not knowledgeable about psychology, neurophysiology etc."
>>> You sure seems to "know" everything about those matters.
>>>
>>> What I write is things I discover about hardware or software. Most people
>>> that react in some more opr less "funny" way, are not able to graps what
>>> it
>>> is I'm stating. When people don't understand something, combined with a
>>> low
>>> IQ ( and for the ones blessed with less than average intelligence: I don't
>>> mean Image Quality), they don't ask questions, but rather draw conclusions
>>> based on their own limited view of life.
>>> You don't know me and they don't know me. You have no idea of what I have
>>> or
>>> may not have achieved in life, yet you and a few others think they know
>>> all
>>> about me and even can predict what I will do next.
>>> People that react in this matter, more often than not, don't have a real
>>> interesting life of their own, so they get their kicks by trying to put
>>> other people down. Most of those people seldom or never start any
>>> interesting topic of their own, simply beacuse they don't have anything to
>>> tell.
>>> Intelligent people understand this and rarely react, just shaking their
>>> heads.
>>> I doubt very much, that any well known and busy photographer (i.o.w.: one
>>> that has enough work) would spent his time digging in my past postings and
>>> come up with things I stated in the past.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a lot of people just don't understand what I mean, when I post
>>> something. I make a statement about something I found and wait for
>>> reactions
>>> to see if my statement is warranted or not. My final conclusions are drawn
>>> long after I evaluated reactions.
>>> A lot of people here don't seem to understand the difference between a
>>> statement and a conclusion.
>>>
>>> Just a few examples:
>>> About the faulty matrix metering on the D90:
>>> I merely stated that it doesn't work as wel on *my camera* as it did with
>>> other camera's, like my (last ;-) Sony, D300.
>>> Some people even pointed out, that it works less than a P&S. Yet a bunch
>>> of
>>> people's reactions are, to make fun of me and quickly point out, that a
>>> "real pro" knows how to get about these issues, I don't know how to get a
>>> shot right, it's the man behind the camera and more nonsense like that.
>>> Nobody questions the "authority" of those many self appointed reviewers,
>>> that more often than not miss a lot of facts about camera's and some even
>>> make completely false statements, like the well known Rob Galbraith.
>>> About the Nikon D5000, he wrote:
>>> "This camera isn't capable of FP High Speed Sync."
>>> See, while I may have brain damage, I check the facts: Nikon states that
>>> it
>>> *is* capable, up to 1/4000 sec.
>>> Another, in my opinion, dumb remark:
>>> "The D5000 offers pro photographers in the Nikon camp a way to try their
>>> hand at digital SLR video, at a price that's even lower than the D90."
>>>
>>> "Pro photographers"? Like amateurs can't buy it or wht does it mean?
>>> Nothing! Exactly.
>>> I can shoot holes in almost all reviews I read, yet the majority of
>>> posters
>>> here answer to them like sheep.
>>> Worst of the reviewers is beggar Ken Rockwell. Reading through his
>>> "reviews"
>>> I get the idea of someone with ADHD on a mixture of cocaine, glue and
>>> gasoline...
>>>
>>> If I find a problem with my car and put in a newsgroup a post if anybody
>>> else has a new Jaguar that consumes a lot of oil or the heater is
>>> defective,
>>> they likely give me a normal answer or ask some questions.
>>> If you put the same question here, a bunch of peoples reaction is
>>> something
>>> like:
>>> It's not the car, it's the driver. A professional wouldn't have that
>>> problem, etc.
>>>
>>> It says more about the quality and intellect of those people than it says
>>> about me.
>> Don't worry about it Focus. What is happening is that the usual pack of
>> full-time resident pretend-photographer role-playing newsgroup trolls have
>> decided to use you for their "fun" this time. The rest of the real
>> photographers who sometimes read this group already know who they are and
>> ignore them. Same stalking tactics, same armchair-photographer bullshit
>> advice, another lost year of their miserable wasted lives.
>>
>> I surmise they are just sad and emotionally desperate agorophobics in
>> wheelchairs that haven't had their colostomy bags changed recently. They
>> have nothing better to do while living in their mommies' basements.
>>
>> FYI: That's not a put-down for people in wheelchairs, mind you. I used to
>> volunteer for an organization that took the blind and paraplegic on 3-5
>> week wilderness adventures into remote areas that even some seasoned
>> backpackers and canoeists would hesitate to go. Portaging a wheelchair is
>> a
>> bitch but I always volunteered for that job for some strange reason,
>> mostly
>> because nobody else would take on that job. Those spokes and hardware will
>> try to latch onto any snag 100-yards away every chance they could. Those
>> people in wheelchairs were worth knowing. The stalking trolls living out
>> their imaginary lives in this newsgroup are not even worth acknowledging
>> their sadly self-inflicted useless existence.
>
>
> Thank you.
> I admire people that do voluntary work. Usually they're are the "non-BS"
> kind.
> I voluntered for the fire department, but as a photographer to document the
> things they do. I would like to be a firefighter but I have some limitations
> that prevent me from doing that (bad back, age, fear of heights, etc.).

I used to be scared of heights, then I had a job that required me to
climb to the top of tall buildings no a regular basis. I got over it,
but I still feel kind of weird on the top of tall buildings! ;^)

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:02 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)

In article <7e166a02-4f14-4fb1-a907-041ab3b59c99@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>See Photonics-Spectra magazine letters section for Apr. Seems that
>the Harvard team is "reluctant" to publish any solid figures on the
>product's sensitivity and that the articles about it have all be "puff
>pieces," perhaps fit for business magazines hawking stocks but not
>scientific journals.

SiOnyx had some inspiring offering. I hope it works out.
Hee is what he told me.

Our measured performance today (with very crude prototypes) routinely performs like what we describe on our webpage. There is
tremendous skepticism about our technology and that is OK. What I can tell you is that we have validated our performance via
independent measurements in NIST traceable Government and commercial labs.

greg

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:28 am
From: "Sharon"

"Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote in message
news:74se0tF150vreU1@mid.individual.net...
> Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dhwv88
>
> or
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
>
> Thanks for looking.
>
>
> Russell

Very nice shots. Where were these taken?

Sharon

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:20 am
From: John McWilliams

Sharon wrote:
> "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote in message
> news:74se0tF150vreU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
>>
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
>>
>> Thanks for looking.

> Very nice shots. Where were these taken?
>
Somewhere cold! I am betting Colorado or Utah....
And, agreed, nice stuff.

--
john mcwilliams

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:04 am
From: Chris H

Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)

What is "full frame"?
Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc

There are also several formats of digital sensor size.

All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
their own design parameters.

So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
particular film size? Especially when all the lenses for the film
cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?

As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
"full frame" in its own system.

However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
format market to use a larger sensor. But does it need to be the same
as the old 35mm film size? On that score the Medium format cameras do
have digital backs.

Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:20 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)

In article <gYyOwpJz7I7JFAS9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
>What is "full frame"?
>Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
>cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
>film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
>
>There are also several formats of digital sensor size.
>
>All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
>their own design parameters.
>
>So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
>particular film size? Especially when all the lenses for the film
>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>
>As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
>gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
>"full frame" in its own system.
>
>However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
>grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
>format market to use a larger sensor. But does it need to be the same
>as the old 35mm film size? On that score the Medium format cameras do
>have digital backs.
>
>Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?

This is what the old lens system uses, and all the new DSLR's,
else your wide angle goes to hell. Large sensors are better
today.

greg

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:35 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Chris H wrote:
[]
> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR
> is "full frame" in its own system.

I prefer the DX size of DSLR as it provides me with lighter weight, more
compact and easier to carry lenses.

> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so
> why?

In almost all compact cameras there is no relationship, and a lot of the
population are quite happy taking and enjoying their photos with such
cameras.

Cheers,
David

==============================================================================

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, April 20, 2009

[PSP-Snags] need Dreamweaver...Anyone??? Marcia

[fnftwo] New warp SB

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 7 topics - digest

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, April 20, 2009

[PSP-Snags] need Dreamweaver...Anyone??? Marcia

[fnftwo] New warp SB

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 7 topics - digest

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

Search

Live Traffic