Photoshop How To Use: Jun 27, 2009

Saturday, June 27, 2009

[fnftwo] tag

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:;Ellie'svcard
FN:Ellie'svcard
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:Ellie@vcard.com
REV:20090628T053359Z
END:VCARD

[fnftwo] a new stat by Ellie

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:;Ellie'svcard
FN:Ellie'svcard
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:Ellie@vcard.com
REV:20090628T053321Z
END:VCARD

This was a music challenge in one of the groups,

Tube by

Yvonne and yours truly.

No Tutorial

thanks for looking

Ellie

xxxxx

Alice's Stationery

[PSP-Snags] Re: Helium Piggy with extras!

Cute Thank you,

2009/6/27 Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ JFanny Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ <jfanny67@gmail.com>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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-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 * http://twitter.com/ktimothy *

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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[PSP-Snags] New by SWDestiny ...Kally

SpiritwolfsDestiny's

Creation

[PSP-Snags] Re: Hello everyone!

Dang girl... you know better than that......

A friend told me once to hold the right side of my nose shut and inhale / exhale from the left side to relieve headaches.

Mine stem from my neck problem and what I do is

while sitting put chin to chest

interlock fingers and place on back of the head, do not pull, just rest the weight on your head

slowly move chin touching chest from center to left shoulder then back to center then to right and center back and forth very slowly. I works for me.

Lower back?

Sit in chair near edge of seat. Spread legs far apart. Lean over and put both palms on floor and stretch it out... hold position for as long as you can without getting dizzy then use hands to push yourself back up. Repeat a few times... works great.

I hate pills lol... Can

----- Original Message -----

From: Inyri Forge

To: Undisclosed Recipients

Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 8:09 PM

Subject: [PSP-Snags] Hello everyone!

Just wanted to say thanks for all the wonderfully awesome shares everyone has sent out in the past week. I've snagged so much today that I think I'm going to need another hard drive just to fit them all onto my computer.

I will get back to sharing tomorrow. I had an unfriendly bout with a 2 1/2 day migraine a week ago and, in my hallucinatory state of mind due to the pain, ended up taking way too many Excedrin Migraine pills and landed myself in the ER to get my stomach pumped.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Chrissy

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photo of Pyrrhopterus
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8176eb8ffb060d4d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 5:20 pm
From: rwalker

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:00:11 -0500, terry andersen
<tandersen@myisp.org> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:34:04 -0500, "Miguel"
><responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Hello:
>>
>>I have just done this photo about this interesting species:
>>
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3665899077/
>>
>>Thanks to all for your comments about photography.
>
>Caged birds and other caged animals are not very interesting, and not just
>because of the ugly cage-bar lines with no chance of any decent
>composition. Some people even find caged-animal photos to be annoying, if
>not disturbing. Try to get out into their native habitat and photograph
>them in their natural environment. You'd be far better off by learning
>photography with common sparrows on a branch or pigeons in the park than
>you'll ever be by photographing caged birds.

Or for that matter, if he's tame enough, let him out of the cage and
try a few shots.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 6:18 pm
From: "Miguel"

"rwalker" <rwalker@despammed.com> escribi� en el mensaje
news:spdd45husapc9krvqg6r4t331iuuhfmt7k@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:00:11 -0500, terry andersen
> <tandersen@myisp.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:34:04 -0500, "Miguel"
>><responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Hello:
>>>
>>>I have just done this photo about this interesting species:
>>>
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3665899077/
>>>
>>>Thanks to all for your comments about photography.
>>
>>Caged birds and other caged animals are not very interesting, and not just
>>because of the ugly cage-bar lines with no chance of any decent
>>composition. Some people even find caged-animal photos to be annoying, if
>>not disturbing. Try to get out into their native habitat and photograph
>>them in their natural environment. You'd be far better off by learning
>>photography with common sparrows on a branch or pigeons in the park than
>>you'll ever be by photographing caged birds.
>
> Or for that matter, if he's tame enough, let him out of the cage and
> try a few shots.

Yes, It is a good option, as soon as, thoses parrots will have a special
processing, but now I only can take photos "as is".

--
Miguel M. Yal�n
http://mmyv.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kodak kills Kodachrome film after 74 years
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ffab234a019b33ac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 5:13 pm
From: Kennedy McEwen

In article
<165395a0-7f26-44cb-907d-46367dd5ef91@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> writes
>On Jun 27, 4:17�am, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article
>>
>> That would be 35,000 plus or minus 4,000 years, not "plus or minus
>> 35,000 years" of an unknown age, which could be zero.
>
>Not so.
>
Yes so.
>
>Now, it's probably more grammatically correct to put the "plus or
>minus" after the date rather than before it, but nobody's going to
>mistake the meaning of the sentence in context

The context added nothing. You were wrong. Stop digging and stand up
like a man.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 6:05 pm
From: Twibil

On Jun 27, 2:55 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > So play word games all you want, but kindly leave me out.
>
> Only if you don't keep on replying.

In that case, fuck off, you self-important little pussy-lipped prick.

> For all the effort you spent on justifying a poorly constucted phrase
> many posts above, you could've worked on clarity in sentence
> construction. It does pay off.

Yeah? Rather than playing net-Nanny to pump up my ego, I've been
writing and selling free-lance magazine articles since clear back in
the 1970s. Editors have occasionally changed my words around to suit
themselves -screwing things up just about as often as the've make them
better- but the checks get cashed the same way in either case. (And
just to stay *mildly* on-topic, I've also taken the photos and drawn
the artwork to illustrate said articles.)

So thanks anyway, but I already pretty much know how to make English -
and photography- "pay off", and can do so quite nicely without your
help.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 6:08 pm
From: Twibil

On Jun 27, 5:13 pm, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The context added nothing.

Only understanding, for those who comprehend what they read.

> You were wrong. Stop digging and stand up
> like a man.

Right. Like you've suddenly been crowned Queen of the Net-Nannies and
now have the authority to order other Usenet posters about, and decide
who's "a man" and who isn't. Perfect example of the cliche' about how
posters who like to whine about spelling and grammar are the same ones
who rarely have anything cogent to say about the actual thread.

What a maroon.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 9:00 pm
From: John McWilliams

Twibil wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2:55 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> So play word games all you want, but kindly leave me out.
>> Only if you don't keep on replying.
>
> In that case, fuck off, you self-important little pussy-lipped prick.
>
>> For all the effort you spent on justifying a poorly constucted phrase
>> many posts above, you could've worked on clarity in sentence
>> construction. It does pay off.
>
> Yeah? Rather than playing net-Nanny to pump up my ego, I've been
> writing and selling free-lance magazine articles since clear back in
> the 1970s. Editors have occasionally changed my words around to suit
> themselves -screwing things up just about as often as the've make them
> better- but the checks get cashed the same way in either case. (And
> just to stay *mildly* on-topic, I've also taken the photos and drawn
> the artwork to illustrate said articles.)
>
> So thanks anyway, but I already pretty much know how to make English -
> and photography- "pay off", and can do so quite nicely without your
> help.

Oh, right. Post a few of the recent articles you've written, you
anonymous coward, and I'll never correct your grammar or spelling, much
less reason, again. Grammatical error in long paragraph, but you'll not
catch it.

--
lsmft

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1415c1c3e6a92134?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 5:09 pm
From: Kennedy McEwen

In article <ubadnS8fnOP-HdvXnZ2dnUVZ_oNi4p2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> writes
>
>I have no interest in spending several hours a day on newsgroups

Should have stopped there. It would have been the most interesting
contribution to the thread you would have made, despite being an obvious
lie as demonstrated by the stats. Get a life Ron and stop lying to
yourself and us.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 5:10 pm
From: Kennedy McEwen

In article <ubadnS0fnOMy4tvXnZ2dnUVZ_oNi4p2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article <Ft6dnc-fdPlgx9jXnZ2dnUVZ_oNi4p2d@giganews.com>, Ron
>>Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes
>>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>>> In article <UaednZo30ppzHtnXnZ2dnUVZ_jhi4p2d@giganews.com>, Ron
>>>>Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>> Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort
>>>>>to insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent
>>>>>arguments?
>>>> Precisely the point I was making about YOUR arrogant response!
>>> I admit to arrogance,
>> > thus fully deserving of all the
>>> personal attacks, or obscene language
>> > I receive.
>> Fixed your post for you!
>
>I think that is what is called putting words in someone else's mouth.

No, its called advice - you would be wise to take the hint.

--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 5:32 pm
From: Dave Connors

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:18:31 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>They Just Get Sad and Sadder wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'll close with this. Hours? At your advanced age, time should
>>> seem to be advancing much more rapidly, not more slowly! :)
>>
>> Yet another way to detect snapshooters from photographers. They find
>> anything at all to post about other than photography, any obscure topic at
>> all that they might know a little about. GPS units, cell-phones, batteries,
>> syntax and spelling, top vs. bottom posting ... you name it. Anything at
>> all to get away from that scary topic of photography. The topic where their
>> book/manual-learned and net-learned ignorance will be easily revealed by
>> real photographers.
>>
>> Actually, the kinds of people like above aren't even snapshooters. They
>> live on the internet, never held a camera in their lives, stalking down
>> their only known companions in life, that being the text on their screens.
>> Deducing their rival posters' every move by how many posts their imaginary
>> "friends" make and in what newsgroups.
>>
>> They only hope and pray that someone would stalk them in return the same
>> way one day, showing that much interest in them. They have yet to figure
>> out that they aren't worth even that much of anyone's time. That kind of
>> psychotic behavior serves no purpose to those with real lives.
>>
>> What a sad sad sad self-evident existence. Oh well. Their choice.
>>
>> Now, what other ways can we list to deduce point and shoot snapshooters
>> from real photographers? Point and shoot photography style, not P&S camera
>> style. Because most every DSLR owner is also nothing but a remedial point
>> and shoot snapshooting camera owner. Otherwise they wouldn't pride
>> themselves on and depend on all their camera's automatic features. Touting
>> the superiority of their camera for having the latest and greatest
>> automatic features. .... Or have we pretty much covered all the more
>> obvious ways to flush-out these point and shoot snapshooting posers who try
>> to pretend to be "X-Spurts" online.
>>
>>
>>
>Well, one way is to notice that they first extend their DSLR to arm's
>length before they realize it has no 'live view'. Grin.

On the contrary. Experienced photographers know that this is a very
effective means of an impromptu "steady-cam" method when their camera has
an LCD viewfinder. Also especially useful for photographing small insects
in flight when using tight macro-methods. Inexperienced snapshooters would
never know this nor how to implement this.

You've just outted yourself as a lowly DSLR-TROLL snapshooter.

Thanks for playing.

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 5:48 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:16:16 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>>
>And you assume this is the only newsgroup to which I post?
>It is one of those I post LEAST to.

Well, it's a start.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 6:03 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:16:16 -0500, Ron, the excuse Hunter wrote:

>> I'll close with this. Hours? At your advanced age, time should
>> seem to be advancing much more rapidly, not more slowly! :)
>
> And you assume this is the only newsgroup to which I post?
> It is one of those I post LEAST to.

Still doesn't fly, Ron. Trimming takes seconds. Actually typing
replies should take much more time unless your typing speed is
extremely fast and you don't spend much time thinking out cogent
things to type. (hmm) So if trimming would take hours, actually
typing the messages should fill nearly the entire 24 hours of your
day. I didn't realize that newsgroups were your life. How much
time do you get to sleep and eat?

You sound like a little child trying to fool their parents with
what he/she thinks is a plausible excuse, but the parents see
through everything because they've been there, done that. :)

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 6:18 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:32:46 -0500, Dave Connors wrote:

>> Well, one way is to notice that they first extend their DSLR to arm's
>> length before they realize it has no 'live view'. Grin.
>
> On the contrary. Experienced photographers know that this is a very
> effective means of an impromptu "steady-cam" method when their camera has
> an LCD viewfinder. Also especially useful for photographing small insects
> in flight when using tight macro-methods. Inexperienced snapshooters would
> never know this nor how to implement this.

Au contraire, dimwit troll. The "steady-cam" method is based on
physics, where two large lever arms are created with the camera
midway between them. Your moment has passed, although you'd never
recognize one. Holding a camera at arm's length is the exact
opposite of what needs to be done to increase steadiness.

> You've just outted yourself as a lowly DSLR-TROLL snapshooter.

That's exactly what we expect our anti-DSLR sock puppet troll to
type, so thanks for outing yourself to those not already familiar
with your other telltale signs. I hope this doesn't torque you off
too much. Scratch that. It probably will, though you won't admit
it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 6:23 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:18:31 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Well, one way is to notice that they first extend their DSLR to
> arm's length before they realize it has no 'live view'. Grin.

On the one hand you say that you don't have enough time to waste
on trimming quotes, yet here you show that you have enough time to
converse with our *easily* identified sock puppet troll. Why don't
you consider that to be an even more egregious waste of time? We
await yet another of your easily debunked explanations.

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 6:28 pm
From: TROLL ALERT

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:18:22 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:32:46 -0500, Dave Connors wrote:
>
>>> Well, one way is to notice that they first extend their DSLR to arm's
>>> length before they realize it has no 'live view'. Grin.
>>
>> On the contrary. Experienced photographers know that this is a very
>> effective means of an impromptu "steady-cam" method when their camera has
>> an LCD viewfinder. Also especially useful for photographing small insects
>> in flight when using tight macro-methods. Inexperienced snapshooters would
>> never know this nor how to implement this.
>
> Au contraire, dimwit troll. The "steady-cam" method is based on
>physics, where two large lever arms are created with the camera
>midway between them. Your moment has passed, although you'd never
>recognize one. Holding a camera at arm's length is the exact
>opposite of what needs to be done to increase steadiness.

You put tension in your arm muscles and use them as effective
counterbalance weights and springs against the inertia of the camera. If
the camera is lacking in enough inertia then you also grasp a heavy book or
rock to make up the difference. But then, the only weight you've ever tried
to balance is that useless mass on top of your neck while depending on
advice from "just as stupid and ignorant as you" references online.

>
>> You've just outted yourself as a lowly DSLR-TROLL snapshooter.
>
> That's exactly what we expect our anti-DSLR sock puppet troll to
>type, so thanks for outing yourself to those not already familiar
>with your other telltale signs. I hope this doesn't torque you off
>too much. Scratch that. It probably will, though you won't admit
>it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

ASSAR, go use some real cameras one day. You're talking out of your ass
again, as usual. You can do nothing but that. You're all ass. To be
expected in every post that you've ever made or will ever make.

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 7:06 pm
From: J�rgen Exner

Dave Connors <dconnors@thisisfun.com> wrote:
>On the contrary. Experienced photographers know that this is a very
>effective means of an impromptu "steady-cam" method when their camera has
>an LCD viewfinder. Also especially useful for photographing small insects
>in flight when using tight macro-methods. Inexperienced snapshooters would
>never know this nor how to implement this.

Yeah, right, "Dave".

jue

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anything for the Perfect Shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 6:01 pm
From: "Bill Graham"

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:e8ydnceUapjRVtjXnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> "John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:1boa45dnetnqv6j7n3t8v23o6010b4jp1i@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:21:15 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4a446d53$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>> Well that's Vista for ya!
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Time to sell that machine, put your feet up, and find a good book to
>>>>>> read.
>>>>> Personally, I'd upgrade it to XP.
>>>>>
>>>> No. I'm a glutton for punishment. I know I am going to, "upgrade" to
>>>> Windows
>>>> 7.
>>> I wish I'd downloaded the beta when it was available. I didn't think
>>> to do so until a couple weeks after they closed the tap.
>>>
>>> I hear there's no "classic" mode. :P
>>
>> I understand that the upgrade will be free to current VISTA owners, so
>> you might as well wait until all the bugs are out......Microsoft likes to
>> use their customers as software testers........
> Free? I VERY seriously doubt that. Also understand that going from WinXP
> to Win7 will require a complete reinstall, so all applications will have
> to be reinstalled. Talk about 'disincentive'!

Well, early in 2008, my other machine began to fail.....Lose/bad connectors
was the problem. They couldn't really fix it. Then, my "C" drive crashed, so
I bought a new machine, and I had to reinstall all my software, and get used
to using Windows VISTA. Then, the new machine kept failing, and it developed
that the motherboard/chip was bad, so I had to buy a new pair of
these......Meant rebuying VISTA and re installing it, which meant
reinstalling all my software again.....And now, If I have to do it again, I
will just live with this machine and its current version of VISTA for the
rest of my life.....I am getting way too old for this kind of crap. I will
only install W-7 if its free, and if I don't have to reload software. All my
Adobe stuff will download for free, and its easy to do.....Adobe keeps a
record of who I am and will let me download everything I buy from them from
machine to machine. But Microsoft says, "Bill Who?" and gives me a hard
time, and they are the ones I need to download everything for........

==============================================================================
TOPIC: canon SX10is - max memory card capacity
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a0bc81c99be36e20?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 7:04 pm
From: J�rgen Exner

yirgster <yirg.kenya@gmail.com> wrote:
>Max memory capacity for th Canon SX10is?
>
>I couldn't find it anywhere.

According to
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sx10is.asp it
supports. SD/SDHC/MMC cards.

SD is limited to 2GB, SDHC in the current specification is limited to
32GB.

jue

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 8:21 pm
From: yirgster

Thanks for your responses, but I'm not sure they addressed what I'm
concerned about.

That a memory card is available in a certain capacity does not imply,
by itself, that the camera can support that capacity. I've run into
this before. E.g., card can be 4GB, but camera only supports a max of
2GB.

From your answers I infer that the SX10is will support whatever
capacity the card has? Is this correct? That is, what is the maximum
card capacity that the camera will in fact support (and not
necessarily the maximum capacity of cards of that type).

That's what my question was or should have been, and what I couldn't
find on the various websites.

On Jun 27, 7:04 pm, J rgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> yirgster <yirg.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Max memory capacity for th Canon SX10is?
>
> >I couldn't find it anywhere.
>
> According tohttp://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sx10is.aspit
> supports. SD/SDHC/MMC cards.
>
> SD is limited to 2GB, SDHC in the current specification is limited to
> 32GB.
>
> jue

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Proud Performer
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f5e7547338ad4134?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 7:34 pm
From: PatM

On Jun 27, 12:49 pm, More-Reality <m...@sigh.com> wrote:
> Congratulations! Your post was voted the most likely to use for my own
> entertainment! No other offers nor coupons implied. ...... I'd type up the
> rest of the standard disclaimer but it's about 20 pages long. (honest, it's
> long, but fun to read)
>
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:01:26 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@spammers.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.spamlink.ca/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=130
>
> >For GDB supporters, the economic downturn has hurt everybody, including
> >charities. Guide Dogs for the Blind needs donations now more than ever.
> >Last year, the school paid out about $1.3 million in vet costs alone --
> >part of that was for Dima.
>
> >http://www.spamlink.com
>
> And here I thought that blind people all want to be treated just like
> everyone else. Live and learn. What's the matter? Aren't they gainfully
> employed? Did people write all that free accessibility software for your
> computers for nothing? Can't they afford to have their own dogs trained?
> Pay for their own vets? I've taken in up to 25 abused, abandoned, or
> otherwise suffering and neglected dogs at one time, nurturing and feeding
> all of them until they all finally died of old-age. Quite a few of them
> died from complications caused by the Lyme-vaccine being pushed at the
> time, testing it in vets offices before they were going to use it on
> humans. But nobody saw me asking for donations. In fact the one vet that I
> finally learned to trust even put together an emergency field-kit that she
> sold to me for her cost. With cauterizing swabs and injectable anesthetics
> so I could stitch up gaping wounds, set bones, and do basic emergency tasks
> on my own. Then I wouldn't have to always be bringing in every new dog to
> her. With living so far in the country it was difficult to get them to the
> vet in time, better I should do as much as I can on my own, on-site. The
> "wholesome" christian farmers in this area treat their dogs worse than
> livestock. You know why, christians don't believe that animals have souls,
> they can do anything that they want to them. Things like gashes around legs
> down to the bone from being tied to fences with thin bare wire. So many
> kept coming to my door of their own accord when they finally got free. I
> guess they sensed where to go for help.
>
> I think the saddest one of all was Rocket. I woke up one morning before
> sunrise to see this dog I've never seen before push open the dog-door on
> the porch. From her jaws she dropped a newborn pup inside. So thin and
> weak, just rib-bones with sticks for legs -- her, not her pup. She ran off,
> came back a half-hour later with another one, pushed it through the
> dog-door and left it inside the porch. Did this 8 more times that long
> morning. How she found my place originally I'll never know, or how she even
> knew what that dog-door was for. All of mine were inside still snoring when
> this started. She was desperate, not even enough energy to produce milk for
> her pups. With care, they all survived and became plump and happy jumpy
> dogs. Come to find out weeks later she came from a devout-christian's farm
> about a mile down the road, they were breeding her to sell expensive
> hunting-dog pups. She came all that way 10 times, 20 miles total, to save
> her pups that morning. She's also the one that had the gaping wound around
> her leg from being tied-up with bare wire. An amazing animal, once owned by
> disgusting humans that should rot forever in their hell. But they don't,
> they still think they are the best people on earth! Just ask them! As they
> drive around in their fancy new refrigerated semi's hauling their goods to
> market as all their animals suffer a life worse than death. (Yes, I
> reported them to 3 different agencies. Didn't do much good. I was told to
> only keep the dogs long enough to bring them back to health then return
> them to the christian-fuckhead owners. Rocket would occasionally bring some
> of her pups by a few times that summer to let me know they were doing okay.
> Or, if abused again, she would stay a few days to a week until the pain was
> past and the owners decided to come get her again. 'Til one year that I saw
> none of them anymore. I didn't want to know what happened.)
>
> Are you telling me that none of you can even teach your dogs how to stop at
> the curb? (Let alone stitch up their wounds if they get them.) How about
> this: You get a bunch of blind people together, with dogs they adopt from
> the Humane Society. All agree to converge in the local park for a few hours
> for 5 days a week for a couple of months. Teach your own dogs how to not
> have them run you into trees. Instant feedback, instant lessons for all,
> FOR FREE. I'm starting to suspect that the blind should succumb to
> Darwinism if all they're ever going to do is survive off of donations and
> the learning and skills of others their whole lives. Sell that camera of
> yours that you can't ever and never will be able to focus or compose scenes
> in properly, you'll then be able to afford your vet bills if you're not
> willing to do something as simple as giving them their shots on your own.
> [Lightly pinch the skin a few inches in front of their tail, on the top of
> their back. Form a little pocket of skin. Inject there between your
> fingers. Easy-peasy. They don't even notice it and still slobber all over
> your face when done. Go to your local livestock feed-mill for all
> antibiotics and syringes needed. I've even used the powdered forms for
> myself, it's the exact same stuff they put in capsules for humans. 100%
> identical, I've checked. Just relabeled for livestock use but at 1/100th to
> 1/1000th the cost. The only thing you have to learn is how to convert
> dosages per lb. of swine or bovine to dog or human weights.]
>
> Is this Guide-Dog program just like those organizations that exploit
> suffering children so they can sit back on the gravy-train raking in all
> that cash while pretending to do something beneficial? You know, those
> christians who would actually do better by handing out condoms and RU-486
> abortion pills so they wouldn't be condemning the next generation to
> starvation, disease, and abject poverty. All the while the Vatican and its
> millions of churches smugly sitting on more gold and land-possessions than
> the wealth in Fort Knox and Wall St. combined, while their fool followers
> still "donate". But oh no, they are wholesome pro-life christians who don't
> believe in population control. Every sperm is sacred! Every sperm is good!
> The only way they're going to overtake the planet with their fool-beliefs
> is by out-breeding all others. The biggest evil of the last century was
> that Mother-Fuckin' Theresa. Not only did she perpetuate the suffering for
> this generation while her church benefited from it, but she also ensured
> that the suffering of those she "helped" would continue for many more
> generations to come. All on the premise that her church and belief system
> should have a reason to exist, with no other goal nor purpose to her
> efforts.
>
> How "saintly" of her, playing Satan's right-hand gal her whole life. What a
> fine and upstanding missionary. Just like all of them that have come before
> and after her. Spreading and ensuring the perpetuation of suffering so
> their church may benefit from it and have a reason to exist. That's some
> really piss-poor faith if you have to perpetuate and exploit that much
> suffering so you can maybe one day believe in your chosen god. Dole out the
> gold contained in the Vatican to everyone and give them back their lands
> (which the churches originally stole) to grow food on, then there'd be no
> starvation to exploit. Ooops, then the church wouldn't have a reason to
> exist. Catch-22, they have to hoard all that wealth and land to give
> themselves a purpose for being. Got starving children in your area? Tear
> down that stupid soulless and useless church that you wasted all your time,
> money and energy in building. Instead use what supplies you can recycle
> from that ghastly spiritual-monstrosity to plant a community-owned field of
> food there. Much less effort with vastly greater benefit for many
> generations to come. What's that? You're too busy praying for food and
> asking for hand-outs? Starve sucker. Death by Darwinism is too good for
> you.
>
> But I digress, with a real solution instead of some psychotic
> daddy-in-the-sky nonsense. One of those greedy self-serving and disgusting
> christian "Save the Children" exploitations was on TV and it got me
> distracted. Let's get back to the problem at hand.
>
> Sure, I could donate to the Guide-Dogs program, but then what would that
> teach you? How to leach off of society your whole life? Oh wait, you've
> already learned that, as I see by your next statement.
>
>
>
> >Also, if you would like to support my passion for art, remember you can
> >Paypal donations to: dha...@spamlink.com
>
> >All donations very much appreciated.
>
> I'm sure they would be appreciated very much. I'm going to start up a
> passion for hangnails and get donations started for that too. The unsung
> suffering of society--Hangnails. Do you know how many tasks have been
> prevented by hangnails? How many accidents have been caused by distracting
> and painful hangnails? Donate now! We will find a way to wipe-out this
> scourge of modern society. All donations very much appreciated. Donate
> before you get your next hangnail. Each donor will receive a small packet
> of Palmolive Dishwashing Liquid so that you may soak your cuticles in a
> dilute solution of it. This temporary cure found by "Mother Madge", the
> Hangnail Saint. She didn't just exploit those with hangnails, she stopped
> hangnails in their tracks. We may not be able to prevent all hangnails yet,
> that's what your donations are for. But we can damned sure try to ease the
> suffering of those that still get them. DONATE NOW! So I too can live off
> of your donations until I am confronted with pleas of "Hey? What happened
> to my donations?" Then you get the usual reply about advertising costs,
> supplies, assistant's paychecks, overhead, start-up fees, private jets to
> cut down on transportation costs ... you know. Lots of money is ...
>
> read more »

I don't know what set you off, dude, but take a pill. A regular
poster solicited for a charity in a not-too-obnoxious way. It's
okay. If you don't like it, ignore it. But your reaction was a bit
overboard.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 9:05 pm
From: John McWilliams

PatM wrote:
> On Jun 27, 12:49 pm, More-Reality <m...@sigh.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know what set you off, dude, but take a pill. A regular
> poster solicited for a charity in a not-too-obnoxious way. It's
> okay. If you don't like it, ignore it. But your reaction was a bit
> overboard.

..............

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus EP-1 focusing may doom it for DSLR users
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6b39aaf93aed311f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 8:08 pm
From: Rich

On Jun 27, 8:05 pm, Sigh ... More Morons To Educate <sm...@smmte.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:51:51 -0400, Charles <fort...@mac.com> wrote:
> >In article <fgfc45hrndge6k7l9edgruervvuq9ei...@4ax.com>, Steven Wandy
> ><swa...@si.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
> >> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
> >> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.
>
> >P&S may be getting better but their shutter lag is still deficient. The
> >main pro of DSLR's over P&S, and also the EP-1 over P&S from the looks
> >of the samples, is the IQ as you say. Point and Shoots can have great
> >results in daylight, often can't see the difference from a DSLR, but in
> >low light conditions Point and Shoots are poor.
>
> Too bad that you missed the moonlight shot and starlight-only shots that
> were posted from a P&S camera about a week ago. A photographer who is
> unable to get decent starlight photos from a P&S camera is only showing
> that they know nothing about how to use any camera. As you just proved
> again yourself.

Starlight photos? What does that mean, illumination of a scene only
by starlight? If so, you are looking at an exposure of a hour at
least.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 8:16 pm
From: Caught Another DSLR-Troll! Ye-Ha!

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:08:23 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jun 27, 8:05 pm, Sigh ... More Morons To Educate <sm...@smmte.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:51:51 -0400, Charles <fort...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >In article <fgfc45hrndge6k7l9edgruervvuq9ei...@4ax.com>, Steven Wandy
>> ><swa...@si.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
>> >> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
>> >> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.
>>
>> >P&S may be getting better but their shutter lag is still deficient. The
>> >main pro of DSLR's over P&S, and also the EP-1 over P&S from the looks
>> >of the samples, is the IQ as you say. Point and Shoots can have great
>> >results in daylight, often can't see the difference from a DSLR, but in
>> >low light conditions Point and Shoots are poor.
>>
>> Too bad that you missed the moonlight shot and starlight-only shots that
>> were posted from a P&S camera about a week ago. A photographer who is
>> unable to get decent starlight photos from a P&S camera is only showing
>> that they know nothing about how to use any camera. As you just proved
>> again yourself.
>
>Starlight photos? What does that mean, illumination of a scene only
>by starlight? If so, you are looking at an exposure of a hour at
>least.

Thanks for just now proving that you've never used any camera in your
lifetime.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 8:44 pm
From: SMS

Steven Wandy wrote:

> Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.

Yeah, for shots where fast AF doesn't matter, the IQ will likely be better.

There's generally three reasons that people get fed up enough with P&S
cameras that they'll get a D-SLR. First is poor low light performance on
indoor shots, because they were used to much better quality indoors
using 400 speed film. Second is the CDAF on the P&S models which results
in agonizingly long lag times. Third is the need for more wide angle
than the P&S can provide. Anyone's that tried to solve the wide-angle
problem with some of those add-on adapters for P&S cameras quickly
realizes that they need to get a D-SLR!

Perhaps the EP-1 will solve two of these issues, we'll see.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 8:48 pm
From: Troll Killer

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:44:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Steven Wandy wrote:
>
>> Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
>> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
>> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.
>
>Yeah, for shots where fast AF doesn't matter, the IQ will likely be better.
>
>There's generally three reasons that people get fed up enough with P&S
>cameras that they'll get a D-SLR. First is poor low light performance on
>indoor shots, because they were used to much better quality indoors
>using 400 speed film. Second is the CDAF on the P&S models which results
>in agonizingly long lag times. Third is the need for more wide angle
>than the P&S can provide. Anyone's that tried to solve the wide-angle
>problem with some of those add-on adapters for P&S cameras quickly
>realizes that they need to get a D-SLR!
>
>Perhaps the EP-1 will solve two of these issues, we'll see.

Dear Resident Pretend-Photographer DSLR-Troll,

Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual
resident-troll bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or
don't read it and continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a
virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.

1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
will ever be made for larger format cameras.

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
lens.

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.

6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
alerting them to your presence.

7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
example-image link in #10.)

9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.

11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
(fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)

13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
human history one day.

14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.

15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)

16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.

17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.

19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
related where DOF is concerned.

21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.

22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
instantly reveal to them their piss-poor photography skills. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.

23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
experience.

24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.

25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
are just better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in
just one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
a foolish thing."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photomatix & HDR
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/438bde75c5450595?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 27 2009 8:31 pm
From: Savageduck

I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
reasonable results.

Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg

Any suggestions?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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

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