rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Scenic areas in England - 13 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* Video will help kill DSLR mirrors - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7a0439ccfcb8a458?hl=en
* May I know where to find these programs? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/db6cd71e48b688fe?hl=en
* Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
* Junk Yard Dog - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/51d68ec432114f66?hl=en
* photo organising SW - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bef72d4e7bd83942?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 5:23 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"
As an American, I really don't think that Obama is
"sensible". Unless you think that socialists who control
every facet of society from the government are "sensible". I
prefer freedom and liberty.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C62B0B49.2962D%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
> but now you elected a sensible president.
The Teleprompter?
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 5:26 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"
Yavoe, mein Herr.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gu4cqv02hkf@news6.newsguy.com...
>> UK passports have biometric data on them and are readable
>> by bar
>> code and at a distance via some sort of chip now.
>>
>
> The only biometric data on mine is a photo.
I'm curious--is an Englishman walking down the street going
to subject to
being asked "papers please"?
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 6:16 am
From: Wolfgang Schwanke
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:gtvp2o$37s$1@news.motzarella.org:
> Please remember that England is socialist.
Oh dear
--
Ceci n'est pas un e-mail.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/
usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 6:29 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-10 02:56:32 -0700, Wolfgang Schwanke <see@sig.nature> said:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in
> news:pa2dndQ7tq4REJvXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>>> You mean dialect I assume. The language is still American English.
>>>
>> Oh? Tell our Germans in Kerrville, and the Mexicans all over the
>> state that, and watch them laugh.
>
> I said it before: Immigrant communities and ethnic minorities are
> commonplace all over the world. This does not affect the fact that they
> integrate into the national culture of wherever they live, and the
> experience of meeting them is not a substitute for foreign travel.
>
>>>> About the only really consistent thing you will
>>>> see in traveling through the US is the currency.
>>>
>>> No. Attitudes, politics, popular culture, supermarket chains, food
>>> brands, television channels and many many other things I can't begin
>>> to enumerate are uniform across the country.
>>>
>>
>> Similar, but hardly uniform.
>
> Similar to be recognizable, and to contrast against those of a foreign
> country.
>
>>>> I have been to most of the US states (all those most extreme ones,
>>>> ie, farthest north, south, east, and west), and some of the changes
>>>> are more noticeable than traveling between, say, Germany, Austria,
>>>> and Switzerland.
>>>
>>> I doubt that. Even the language between Germany, Austria and
>>> Switzerland differs more than it does within the USA.
>>>
>>
>> Hardly, and much like the US, regional variations are found, but many
>> places in just Texas you will find different languages spoken on the
>> street.
>
> The dialectal variety of German is _much_, _much_ larger than that of
> American English (British English is comparable to German in that
> respect, but we're not talking about that). Especially Switzerland as
> that was mentioned: Standard German is not normally used in the street.
> They speak dialect everywhere, even in school, even in university. Radio
> and television are almost exclusively in dialect. And they do not have
> modes of speech halfway between dialect and standard German. It's either
> or, and most of the time it's dialect only. Standard German is mostly
> restricted to writing, and speaking to foreigners (either Germans or
> those who speak German as a foreign language, including their
> French/Italian speaking Swiss brethren). And their dialect is so removed
> from standard German that native speakers from Germany and Austria do
> not readily understand it, unless they're accustomed to it through
> former exposure. Television shows from the "German" speaking part of
> Switzerland are routinely subtitled when shown on German or Austrian
> television.
>
> Contrasted with American English: The street language I experienced in
> New York and Hawaii was basically the same.
I suspect you did not fully explore New York. There are some
communities in NY where English is not the language of choice.
You haven't been to Chattanooga, or parts of the Mississippi Delta, or
Pennsylvania have you?
There the local spoken language is hardly recognizable as "English" of
any type.
Then there is Gullah, a creole language spoken on some of the East
Coast barrier islands.
>
>> There used to be a grocery store a couple of miles from me
>> where I sometimes shopped where I have heard as many as 6 languages
>> spoken on a given day. I used to call it 'the United Nations
>> supermarket'. Grin.
>
> Yawn. Immigrant groups doing their thing is not specific to the US and
> not a surrogate for foreign travel.
Agreed. There is no replacement for foreign travel.
What those who are not fully aware of the depth of US diversity should
know is, we are not all made from the same mold. Also the great
majority of Americans could spend a lifetime travelling in this country
and/or the North American continent avoiding the familiar to broaden
horizons.
California and New York State are as diverse as any places you could
imagine. It is not a one size fits all country
Those of us who have travelled extensively are also fully aware of
regional differences in France, Germany, Belgium, The UK, etc. Baverian
Germany is as different to Hessian, or Prussian, or Saxon Germany, as
Louisiana is to Oregon.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 6:21 am
From: Wolfgang Schwanke
"Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote in
news:he6805hj9nv6ijvvhhql63hojcn5uraurj@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 8 May 2009 06:53:52 -0400, "J. Clarke"
><jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> It is the three middle eastern religions that cause all the trouble
>>> in the world.
>>
>>So which one caused North Korea? Which one caused Darfur? Which one
>>caused the Somali pirates?
>
> not all trouble is caused by religion, but of the trouble caused by
> religion, they are putting up a good show. All religions cause trouble
> of course, as it gives people an extra reason to hate others.
Religions don't cause trouble in the sense of the word. People cause
trouble, and they use as pretext whatever comes in handy. Religion
comes in pretty handy, but if it wasn't there they'd use something
else. It's no surprise the religions with the largest number of
followers are used most often. Incidentally, Judaism isn't used so
often, given it has only a comparatively small number of followers.
--
Ceci n'est pas un e-mail.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/
usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:06 am
From: Wolfgang Schwanke
Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in
news:2009051006290215668-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom:
>> The dialectal variety of German is _much_, _much_ larger than that of
>> American English (British English is comparable to German in that
>> respect, but we're not talking about that). Especially Switzerland as
>> that was mentioned: Standard German is not normally used in the
>> street. They speak dialect everywhere, even in school, even in
>> university. Radio and television are almost exclusively in dialect.
>> And they do not have modes of speech halfway between dialect and
>> standard German. It's either or, and most of the time it's dialect
>> only. Standard German is mostly restricted to writing, and speaking
>> to foreigners (either Germans or those who speak German as a foreign
>> language, including their French/Italian speaking Swiss brethren).
>> And their dialect is so removed from standard German that native
>> speakers from Germany and Austria do not readily understand it,
>> unless they're accustomed to it through former exposure. Television
>> shows from the "German" speaking part of Switzerland are routinely
>> subtitled when shown on German or Austrian television.
>>
>> Contrasted with American English: The street language I experienced in
>> New York and Hawaii was basically the same.
>
> I suspect you did not fully explore New York.
I was a tourist. :)
> There are some
> communities in NY where English is not the language of choice.
There are such communities in any major city of the western world. That
is not special.
> You haven't been to Chattanooga, or parts of the Mississippi Delta, or
> Pennsylvania have you?
No
> There the local spoken language is hardly recognizable as "English" of
> any type.
But that is true for what they speak in New York and Honolulu too. :)
Seriously, no mainland USA dialect of English is as remote from
standard English as e.g. Scots, I assume. Think Scots vs. Cockney vs
Welsh English, and you get an idea of how varied languages such as
German or France are in a much smaller territory. All native versions
of English spoken in North America do not cover such an extreme span.
> Then there is Gullah, a creole language spoken on some of the East
> Coast barrier islands.
I'd be as bold as including such varieties in my statement.
--
Ceci n'est pas un e-mail.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/
usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:24 am
From: Chris H
In message <gvkid6-uj5.ln1@wschwanke.de>, Wolfgang Schwanke
<see@sig.nature> writes
>Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in
>news:pa2dndQ7tq4REJvXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>>> You mean dialect I assume. The language is still American English.
>>>
>> Oh? Tell our Germans in Kerrville, and the Mexicans all over the
>> state that, and watch them laugh.
>
>I said it before: Immigrant communities and ethnic minorities are
>commonplace all over the world. This does not affect the fact that they
>integrate into the national culture of wherever they live, and the
>experience of meeting them is not a substitute for foreign travel.
>
>>>> About the only really consistent thing you will
>>>> see in traveling through the US is the currency.
>>>
>>> No. Attitudes, politics, popular culture, supermarket chains, food
>>> brands, television channels and many many other things I can't begin
>>> to enumerate are uniform across the country.
>>>
>>
>> Similar, but hardly uniform.
>
>Similar to be recognizable, and to contrast against those of a foreign
>country.
>
>>>> I have been to most of the US states (all those most extreme ones,
>>>> ie, farthest north, south, east, and west), and some of the changes
>>>> are more noticeable than traveling between, say, Germany, Austria,
>>>> and Switzerland.
>>>
>>> I doubt that. Even the language between Germany, Austria and
>>> Switzerland differs more than it does within the USA.
>>>
>>
>> Hardly, and much like the US, regional variations are found, but many
>> places in just Texas you will find different languages spoken on the
>> street.
>
>The dialectal variety of German is _much_, _much_ larger than that of
>American English (British English is comparable to German in that
>respect, but we're not talking about that). Especially Switzerland as
>that was mentioned: Standard German is not normally used in the street.
>They speak dialect everywhere, even in school, even in university. Radio
>and television are almost exclusively in dialect. And they do not have
>modes of speech halfway between dialect and standard German. It's either
>or, and most of the time it's dialect only. Standard German is mostly
>restricted to writing, and speaking to foreigners (either Germans or
>those who speak German as a foreign language, including their
>French/Italian speaking Swiss brethren). And their dialect is so removed
>from standard German that native speakers from Germany and Austria do
>not readily understand it, unless they're accustomed to it through
>former exposure. Television shows from the "German" speaking part of
>Switzerland are routinely subtitled when shown on German or Austrian
>television.
>
>Contrasted with American English: The street language I experienced in
>New York and Hawaii was basically the same.
So that is Austria, Germany and Switzerland taken care of... Now compare
those three "identical" :-) countries with Italy, France, Norway Poland
and Holland that surround them.
Ignoring that Spain and Portugal are as Identical as Germany and
Switzerland :-)
>
>> There used to be a grocery store a couple of miles from me
>> where I sometimes shopped where I have heard as many as 6 languages
>> spoken on a given day. I used to call it 'the United Nations
>> supermarket'. Grin.
>
>Yawn. Immigrant groups doing their thing is not specific to the US and
>not a surrogate for foreign travel.
Quite so it is the same in any major city in Europe and has been for
centuries... long before the Americans got invaded by European Religious
fanatics a mere 500 years ago. :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:28 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Need to carry passport in a RF shield foil pouch, so
> everyone within range can't read your RFID information.
> Otherwise, it's the digital equivilant of having your
> personal information stencilled on your back, so everyone
> can read it.
So how does it benefit somebody to know your passport number?
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:33 am
From: "Deep Reset"
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gtvp2o$37s$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Please remember that England is socialist.
Oh yeah, we just love Kim Jong-Il, our kinda bloke.
>You don't have rights there, unless they decide you do.
You've obviously never faced a US Immigration officer at an airport.
>Please ask the local folks what is permitted, so you don't get in trouble
> with the law.
Well, we don't like you bringing your firearms with you, but you can wear as
many short-sleeved shirts as you like.
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
No thanks - I gave up reading fairy tales when I grew up.
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:34 am
From: Chris H
In message <cpnNl.27171$HA3.15604@newsfe01.ams2>, Keith Willshaw
<keith@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:gu4nj3$auf$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Keith Willshaw" <keith@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:LMhNl.117343$A85.111149@newsfe03.ams2...
>>
>>>
>>> The only biometric data on mine is a photo.
>>
>> It's an old one then.
>>
>> Your next passport will have biometric data and an embedded chip.
>>
>
>You missed the point I fear, from the government identity and passport
>service
>
><Quote>
>What information is stored on the chip?
>The chip stores the passport holder's photo and the personal details printed
>on page 31 of the passport.
></Quote>
>
>So the ONLY biometric data on the passport is a photo !
At the moment. It is a trivial change to add new items.
>Oh and an article in the times showed that a computer researcher
>(Jeroen van Beek) was able to read, clone and alter those RFID
>chips in less than 40 minutes. One of the fake passports contained
>a photo of Osama Bin Laden, it passed the check by the airport
>passport reader.
>
>Some security
More worrying is over 3000 blank and unused new RFID UK passports were
stolen last year.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:29 am
From: Chris H
In message <4a05f7c7$0$1633$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> writes
>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> tony cooper
>
>>>There is also the issue of foreign travel without sampling the culture
>>>of other countries. There are foreign tourists who come here to
>>>Orlando and spend their entire holiday in Disney and the other theme
>>>parks. They go home knowing no more about the culture here than they
>>>did when they arrived.
>>
>>I know what you mean... We have people in the UK who go abroad to
>>"Spain". Get a tour operators coach from the airport to the hotel and
>>never leave the hotel/beach/pool for 14 days and each strictly English
>>food. They never get to see "spain" as these hotels tend to be the same
>>anywhere..... Spain, Greece, Orlando etc.
>
>But they're not going to see the country, are they? They're going to
>see the Sun. Soemthing which is rather rare in N. Europe.
Not from where I am siting with in an office with a nice south facing
window. :-) But yes, in general it is the sun, sea, sand and sex,
though these days it is more the night clubs, drink, sex, sun and an
hour on the beach after lunch.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:36 am
From: Chris H
In message <4a0668e5$0$11197$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net>, Paul
Bartram <paul.bartram@AT.OR.invalid> writes
>Y'know, this newsgroup is amazing. Where else would someone ask a question
>about tall buildings in London, and end up with hundreds of replies covering
>everything from Islamic militants to firearm calibres, to paranoia, to the
>IRA (I plead guilty to that one!), to socialism, to whether Americans travel
>much, to spelling errors... I've probably missed a few!
>
>(Yes, I realise the original question was cross-posted to rec.travel.europe,
>but I think rpd regulars did more than their share!)
>
>Mind you, at least it keeps the place jumping, and crowds out the Spam.
>
>Paul
The other thread on which photo catalogue Sw to use went the same
way... It must be something in the air (other than swine flu :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:43 am
From: Chris H
In message <gu6odj02jig@news3.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> writes
>Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> Need to carry passport in a RF shield foil pouch, so
>> everyone within range can't read your RFID information.
>> Otherwise, it's the digital equivilant of having your
>> personal information stencilled on your back, so everyone
>> can read it.
>
>So how does it benefit somebody to know your passport number?
They can fake a passport.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Video will help kill DSLR mirrors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7a0439ccfcb8a458?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 5:43 am
From: Don Stauffer
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <4a058896$0$89388$815e3792@news.qwest.net>, Don Stauffer
> says...
>
>> If you are doing manual focus, I have yet to see an EV that has enough
>> resolution for seeing the focus with adequate resolution. I do a lot of
>> macro work, where I want to place the plane of best focus somewhere
>> between edges (front to back), and AF doesn't do this very well.
>
> Well, manual focus through my A350 is unusable. It may be a DSLR with an
> optical viewfinder, but the manual focus is by far too inaccurate. If I
> try to manually focus I get blurred pictures.
I find my D40X to be right on for focus. You need to find a shop with a
good collimator and get that checked.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 5:45 am
From: Don Stauffer
J. Clarke wrote:
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> Tangent:
>>> How do film movie camera viewfinders work?
>> Remember, standard resolution video is less than a megapixel. Not
>> hard to focus with that low a res. Even HD is less than 2 Mp.
>
> Well that's nice but the question was about FILM.
He didn't say which format, but my SD video far surpasses my old 8mm
movies. So 2Mp would be considerably above 8mm, even Super8.
Also, old 8mm format was so small, the standard lenses were very short
FL, so depth of field was very generous.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:27 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Don Stauffer wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Don Stauffer wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> Tangent:
>>>> How do film movie camera viewfinders work?
>>> Remember, standard resolution video is less than a megapixel. Not
>>> hard to focus with that low a res. Even HD is less than 2 Mp.
>>
>> Well that's nice but the question was about FILM.
>
> He didn't say which format, but my SD video far surpasses my old 8mm
> movies. So 2Mp would be considerably above 8mm, even Super8.
>
> Also, old 8mm format was so small, the standard lenses were very short
> FL, so depth of field was very generous.
So how does your SD video compare to 70mm IMAX?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: May I know where to find these programs?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/db6cd71e48b688fe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 5:49 am
From: Don Stauffer
aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi !
>
> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
> them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
> bit.
>
> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
eliminate or reduce them.
>
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
snip
> Best regards.
In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:06 am
From: Sir F. A. Rien
Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> found these unused words:
>aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi !
>>
>> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>>
>> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
>> them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
>> bit.
>>
>> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
>> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
>If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
>a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
>eliminate or reduce them.
Halftones are best dealt with during the scanning process as IF your scanner
has such capabilities, it makes the scan at maximum optical, applies the
halftone routine [there are several, plus some allow you to specify the
screen] and then resamples [which it does anyway] to your specified ppi
setting.
>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>
>snip
>> Best regards.
>
>In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
>Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
>for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:35 am
From: M-M
In article
<41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>
> B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
> Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
>
> Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
> pictures REMAIN small.
Sounds like you need a better scanner. If you scan at 1200 dpi, a 1.5
inch photo becomes 6 inches at 300 dpi. Unless of course the original is
grainy to start. If you can see more detail in the original under a
magnifying glass than with your naked eye, a better scanner would do it.
--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 6:15 am
From: Hughes
On May 10, 8:24 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESP...@me.com> wrote:
> On 2009-05-10 04:29:59 -0700, Hughes <eugenhug...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
>
> > I found an incredible web site above that details terrestrial
> > photography and the truth about airy discs, MTFs, resolutions,
> > telephotos, APS-Cs DSLR, etc. that is cited by Roger N. Clark.
>
> OK ! You have stumbled over a site those of us interested in
> "terrestrial" photography, have been aware of and gravitated towards
> for years.
> Agreed there is much to be learned through this site.
>
> > It shows that airy discs and its analysis which the savage
> > duck hates so much don't just concern astrophotographers
> > but also normal terrestrial photographers.
>
> Hate? Why would I hate the actual physics? I am perfectly aware ALL
> aspects of physice related to optics effect both areas of photography.
> What I have made obvious since you started this, and similar threads,
> is my objection to your stubborn persistence and failure to recognize
> sincere and studied responses.
> All who took you seriously responded from a position of experience and
> knowledge of the subject. You demonstrated you were not prepared to
> graciously accept any response, or answer which did not fit your
> preconceived idea of the subject.
That's not true. Because Chris Peterson tried to tell me to
ignore the airy disc when it is the object of fundamental
importance in Terrestrial Photography. Even Martin
Brown told me to ignore it. No one answers what
it has got to do with terrestrial photography until
when I encountered the web site which says that
the MTF of Dawes' Limit at resolution chart is 0%
and the Rayleigh Limit is 9% which is what terrestrial
photography must concern about. And he calculates
even the pixel pitch and Megapixels for optimum
performance.
> No, I don't hate Airy discs or any analysis there of.
>
> > Most sites about its analysis concerns astrophotography but the above is
> > entirely on the terrestrial photography frame of view
> > (I wrote this thread ender for those who are seeking
> > answers about airy discs, resolution, etc. in terrestrial
> > photography and how they are treated compared to
> > astrophotography).
>
> "Thread ender!" If only??
Yup. I found the web site (and interrelated links)
and all information I need so what more must I write
except to reply to you.
Ok, truce, the thread ends
:)
Hughes
>
>
>
> > I think the reason astrophotographers are concerned ..........
> > <le snip> ...... Airy disc.
>
> > Hughes
>
> >> < an amazing number of wasted words snipped>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 6:40 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-10 06:15:01 -0700, Hughes <eugenhughes@gmail.com> said:
> On May 10, 8:24 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESP...@me.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-05-10 04:29:59 -0700, Hughes <eugenhug...@gmail.com> said:
>> "Thread ender!" If only??
>
> Yup. I found the web site (and interrelated links)
> and all information I need so what more must I write
> except to reply to you.
>
> Ok, truce, the thread ends
>
> :)
>
> Hughes
Fair enough. Truce.
Just remember, there is more to photography than the "science" of
photograohy. If you dwell on that too long the level of enjoyment and
satisfaction you could gain will be deminished. So just have fun with
it.
>
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 6:51 am
From: Chris L Peterson
On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:29:59 -0700 (PDT), Hughes <eugenhughes@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I found an incredible web site above that details terrestrial
>photography and the truth about airy discs, MTFs, resolutions,
>telephotos, APS-Cs DSLR, etc. that is cited by Roger N. Clark.
>It shows that airy discs and its analysis which the savage
>duck hates so much don't just concern astrophotographers
>but also normal terrestrial photographers.
You're completely misunderstanding the point a lot of people are trying
to make. It isn't that diffraction theory (what you call Airy discs) is
unimportant; it's just that this sort of first principles analysis isn't
particularly useful for understanding what's going on in a real case
analysis. Fundamental analysis methods have produced a set of simple
formulas that are much more useful for practical analysis.
>I think the reason astrophotographers are concerned
>mostly with the FWHM (Full Width at Half Max) of the
>diffraction disk is because the Dawes' Limit is very
>important for them as splitting doubles...
Astroimagers aren't normally concerned with the FWHM of the diffraction
disc. That's because they don't see the diffraction disc due to seeing.
Astroimagers are concerned with the FWHM of _stars_ because it provides
a useful metric of actual resolution. Terrestrial photographers are no
less interested in achieving the maximum possible resolution- something
that is unrelated to the choice of Dawes limit, Rayleigh limit, or any
other metric (resolution is absolute, regardless of the choice of number
you attach to it). The reason that terrestrial photographers don't look
at FWHM is simply that they don't have point sources in their images
that can be used to get a measurement.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 6:54 am
From: AM
Hughes wrote:
> That's not true. Because Chris Peterson tried to tell me to
> ignore the airy disc when it is the object of fundamental
> importance in Terrestrial Photography. Even Martin
> Brown told me to ignore it. No one answers what
> it has got to do with terrestrial photography
And you should listen to them. There are more
important problems you should be considering.
(composing the shot, lighting etc.)
Running the equipment takes practice, and work.
All this number crunching you are fond of doesn't
help you here much...
Do you actually take pictures, and or observe with
any of your equipment ?
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
http://www.novac.com
vp@novac.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Junk Yard Dog
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/51d68ec432114f66?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:09 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Caesar Romano" <Spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:1fed051jemkqu4n7armm4vvqg28k5km76v@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 06:35:20 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote Re Junk Yard Dog:
>
>>Comments welcome.
>
> I notice that most of your shots are exposure biased +0.67EV. For most
> of the front-lit shots, that looks too bright for my taste. I would
> drop it to +0.33EV or even 0.0EV.
Thanks, Caesar, I bumped up the EC because some folks were saying my shots
lacked detail in the shadows. But, 2/3 sounds like it is a bit too much.
I'll drop it down a third for a while and see how much difference it makes.
Thanks for the comment.
Take Care,
Dudley
==============================================================================
TOPIC: photo organising SW
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bef72d4e7bd83942?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 10 2009 7:19 am
From: Chris H
In message <4a06b0cc$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <4a055432@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes
>>> Chris H wrote:
>>>> In message <4a04010a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>>>> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes
>>>>> You think I'm in a hole? Mate, I earn my living dealing with these
>>>>> sorts of problems in businesses.
>>>> Likewise
>>> And you've never seen the result of a ground strike? Then you mustn't
>>> be all that experienced. I've seen dozens of them over the years.
>> It depends where in the world you are. Some areas get them a lot.
>>Some
>> areas never see them.
>
>Sure, but don't try to tell me that they never happen.
VERY very rare where I am.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
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
