Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 22 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus launches micro 4/3 camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/106fab96d8be9fe1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:48 pm
From: ray

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:17:29 -0700, John Navas wrote:

> On 18 Jun 2009 00:14:21 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
> <79tf6sF1rhqjqU32@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:58:33 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>> When I'm shopping for a camera I want to know about the camera, not
>>> listen to music that someone else has selected.
>>
>>Amen. Content is, or should be, king. Glitz means very little when one
>>is seeking information.
>
> Marketing data says otherwise -- packaging is extremely important.

Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was not important. What
I said was - WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, CONTENT IS KING.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:23 pm
From: John Navas

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:32:14 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote in <h1c1vt$s7b$1@news.eternal-september.org>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:03:13 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
>> wrote in <h1c09h$o1m$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:35:03 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote in <h1bukm$j2t$2@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>>>>>> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
>>>>>>> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
>>>>>> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
>>>>>> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
>>>>>> camera?
>>>>> Gersnorfle! Good'un, JC.
>>>> So you're saying that a straw man fallacy is a good'un?
>>> No. I am saying I enjoyed his turn of phrase. Did not opine as to
>>> fallacies nor straw men, and my mentioning them in response to your
>>> reply neither confirms nor denies that I agree his statement contains
>>> either.
>>>
>>> Clear? :-)
>>
>> Usenet at it's best. ;)
>
>Usenet at *its* best!

Touché! ;)

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:26 pm
From: John Navas

On 18 Jun 2009 02:48:11 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
<79to7aF1rhqjqU33@mid.individual.net>:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:17:29 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>
>> On 18 Jun 2009 00:14:21 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>> <79tf6sF1rhqjqU32@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:58:33 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>> When I'm shopping for a camera I want to know about the camera, not
>>>> listen to music that someone else has selected.
>>>
>>>Amen. Content is, or should be, king. Glitz means very little when one
>>>is seeking information.
>>
>> Marketing data says otherwise -- packaging is extremely important.
>
>Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was not important. What
>I said was - WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, CONTENT IS KING.

Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was all important. What
I said was - PACKAGING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 10:53 pm
From: ASAAR

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:12:12 -0700, John Navas with the goofy grin
wrote:

>>> A sad commentary on those people. Regardless, this isn't a general
>>> website like Google, and the marketing people may simply not be
>>> interested in those who will click away after only 15 seconds, focusing
>>> instead on those who want the full experience. It's called "focusing on
>>> the target market" and "qualifying the prospect".
>>
>> It's also called "limiting your prospective client list".
>
> You have more marketing expertise than they do? ;)

Possibly, but definitely more than you have. Knowledgeable
managers have started to criticize Olympus's management for not
realizing how popular the camera was going to be, so it's going to
be in very short supply for a very long time, as cameras go, which
will be all to their competitor's benefit.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 10:57 pm
From: ASAAR

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:26:00 -0700, John Navas wrote:

>> Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was not important. What
>> I said was - WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, CONTENT IS KING.
>
> Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was all important. What
> I said was - PACKAGING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

Yep, it is. And you can shout all you want, but Olympus blew it.
Since you haven't gotten it thus far, you (the child that never
admits error) never will.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHDK P&S Cameras Soar Above All Others Again - Photos From the
Stratosphere - Again
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/481ec56ed2cf8bd2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 8:51 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends <tsodtne@tsodtne.com> wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2009 16:30:40 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>P&Ss Win Again & Again <howsthat@andyouarewho.com> wrote:
>>>http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,3766.0.html

>>>Not too shabby for a $138 camera and a simple script that runs within it,
>>>using the free software add-on CHDK.
>>
>>Any camera can take decent pictures in bright sunlight.
>>
>>>Quick to freeze-up brick cameras must be left on the ground, gathering
>>>sensor-dust on shelves -- again.
>>
>>Like those Hasselblad cameras that NASA has used?
>
>You're selling yours for $138? Wow! I'm buying!

You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 10:36 pm
From: The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends

On 18 Jun 2009 03:51:16 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) spewed the
following stupidity:

>
>You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?

Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron. I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
all 100% of which are easily printed to 13"x19" or larger, are taken by
moonlight

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg

and starlight

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg

alone.

No editing in those other than a minor crop on one of them, no fancy
special effects, no layered patch jobs. That's as the camera saw and
recorded them. Except for the drastic downsizing and compression.

Is it my fault that you and all like you are so damn lame that you don't
know how to use ANY camera properly? Go take some beginner's classes in
photography, or something. All of you just keep making world-wide fools of
yourselves with every comment that you type.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 10:51 pm
From: Bob Larter

The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2009 03:51:16 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) spewed the
> following stupidity:
>
>> You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
>
> Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron. I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
> all 100% of which are easily printed to 13"x19" or larger, are taken by
> moonlight
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg

That one's not bad, apart from the low resolution.

> and starlight
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg

*yawn*

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

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 11:23 pm
From: The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:51:35 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>*yawn*

I see that I managed to yet again attain my goal. Thanks for the yawn. Post
only the minimum of example needed to totally disprove the DSLR-Trolls'
stupidity while not entertaining all basement-living trolls with anything
worthy. It's a fun fine-line challenge. Though I am a bit disappointed that
you were mildly fond of the other one. I thought for sure it was far enough
down in the scrapshot heap. I'll have to dig deeper into my test scrapshots
so that all examples I might post get yawns, or less, from useless
cretinous trolls like you.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 11:29 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends <tsodtne@tsodtne.com> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
>
>>You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
>
>Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron.

So you're just soem stupid asshole who likes to argue about things and
prove yourself to be a stupid asshole.

> I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,

I'd say that you're full of shit.

>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg

Low resolution picture of a full moon. BFD.

>and starlight
>
>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg

Whose SLR did you borrow? Or did you just copy the photo from
somewhere else?

>No editing in those other than a minor crop on one of them, no fancy
>special effects, no layered patch jobs.

No honesty, no integrity, no sanity ...

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 11:43 pm
From: The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends

On 18 Jun 2009 06:29:04 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends <tsodtne@tsodtne.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
>>
>>>You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
>>
>>Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron.
>
>So you're just soem stupid asshole who likes to argue about things and
>prove yourself to be a stupid asshole.
>
>> I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
>
>I'd say that you're full of shit.
>
>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
>
>Low resolution picture of a full moon. BFD.
>
>>and starlight
>>
>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
>
>Whose SLR did you borrow?

Sold all my DSLR gear long ago, I'll never go near that crap camera design
ever again. I kept my SLR gear for nostalgia's sake. I've not taken a photo
with that for over 10 years. This image was taken last winter with a P&S
camera.

Thanks for proving just how little you know about how to use any camera if
you think you need an SLR or DSLR to take a shot like that.

> Or did you just copy the photo from
>somewhere else?

The usual DSLR-Troll's mental justification. Even when you rub their nose
in it they claim it's all a lie. They can't handle that everything they've
ever convinced themselves of all their life is the real lie.

Then they wonder why people with any camera skills at all don't care to
post any photos or examples. Why bother? They just claim it's stolen, or it
wasn't shot as claimed. Same Troll's bullshit every day of their uselessly
damned and pathetic lives.

>
>>No editing in those other than a minor crop on one of them, no fancy
>>special effects, no layered patch jobs.
>
>No honesty, no integrity, no sanity ...

Projecting again?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Shot Seen 'Round the World
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15107f2ca666bb2e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:14 pm
From: John Turco

Chris H wrote:
>
> In message <250106fb-48d5-4568-9929-b61247c183be@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups
> .com>, Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> writes
> >On Jun 10, 9:02 pm, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
> >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424737510590641.html?mod=googlenew...
> >>
> >> Finally, and none too soon!
> >
> >Baseball?
>
> Otherwise known as the girl's game of Rounders in the civilised world.
>
> > I thought someone had a picture of the assassination of
> >Archduke Ferdinand.
>
> Quite...
>
> Baseball, American Football and the like are relay only of interest in
> the USA. So *any* event in Baseball only has local interest.
>
> The problem is that Americans think that things that are important only
> to Americans are of global significance.

Hello, Chris:

Basketball is an American invention, which became internationally
popular. It's probably the world's most widespread team sport, in
fact.

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:14 pm
From: John Turco

ASAAR wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 02:51:44 -0500, John Turco wrote:
>
> > Hey, man, let's allow those poor, unfortunate Australian wretches (and
> > their countless counterparts, in other non-U.S., English-speaking nations),
> > to broaden their horizons, shall we? :-)
>
> Nah, lets just throw a few of them on the barbie. Good to see
> you've returned. Unfortunately so has the infamous Mssr. Navas.

Hello, ASAAR:

It's good to be back, although...I started posting here, again, away
back on June 1, 2009. <g>

> > Oh, well, there was >some< justice, after all...as the New York Yankees
> > defeated their crosstown rivals (the Giants), 4 games to 2, in the 1951
> > World Series. :-J
>
> It would have been just as enjoyable had the "shot" never happened
> and the Yanks ended up beating "Dem Bums" instead! :)

Those "other" New York Giants did ruin my evening, about 17 months ago.
They put on a late "rally" of their own, and dashed the New England
Patriots' dream of an unprecedented 19-0 season and Super Bowl title.

I guess that one could logically say (in this day and age of global
electronic media) Giants wide receiver David Tyree made "The Catch
Seen And Heard - And Replayed, Over And Over Again - 'Round The
World." :-P

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 11:48 pm
From: ASAAR

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:14:26 -0500, John Turco wrote:

>> It would have been just as enjoyable had the "shot" never happened
>> and the Yanks ended up beating "Dem Bums" instead! :)
>
> Those "other" New York Giants did ruin my evening, about 17 months ago.
> They put on a late "rally" of their own, and dashed the New England
> Patriots' dream of an unprecedented 19-0 season and Super Bowl title.

Did the Giants really dash the Patriot's dream, or did a certain
playboy quarterback spend too much party time before rather than
after the game?

> I guess that one could logically say (in this day and age of global
> electronic media) Giants wide receiver David Tyree made "The Catch
> Seen And Heard - And Replayed, Over And Over Again - 'Round The
> World." :-P

Is it really only global? It seems to me that if Coover got his
facts straight about the "Universal Baseball Association", football
may also be beyond global.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Universal_Baseball_Association,_Inc.,_J._Henry_Waugh,_Prop.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Slide to digital conversion
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c66961e95e8dbb51?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:14 pm
From: John Turco

Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
> I saw this advertised on the web.
>
> Iona Sliders And Negative Converter
> "Iona Sliders And Negative Cnvrtr To PC OR iPod NIC
> 35mm Photo Negative and Slide Converter to PCTranfers 35mm negatives and
> slides to PC or notebook quickly and easilyTurntable has 2 ports for
> converting nearly simultaneously from record, through computer, into any
> iPod?Print, edit or archive photo collection with quick and easy
> scanning software5MP hi-res full-color scanning with 1-touch instant
> scanUSB 2.0 connection and USB 2.0 portFixed focus range and auto
> exposure/color balance with high-quality 4 glass optical elementIncludes
> USB connection and software "
>
> and was attracted by the price.
>
> Has anyone had any experience with this or similar type of slide to
> digital system?

Hello, Keith:

A few months ago, I bought a VuPoint Solutions "21c Film And Slide Digital
Converter" (model WM-FC-VR), at a local Wal-Mart. It had been marked down
to $40 USD (from $80), so, I decided to grab it.

(The "Iona" and kindred devices, of different brand names, are essentially
identical to the 21c.)

It was a clear case of one's getting what he paid for, alas. The 21c is
a tiny, 5 megapixel camera, which takes snapshots of 35mm negatives and
slides; it's not an actual scanner. My results would've been perfectly
adequate, for posting on the Web, but...of dubious value, otherwise.

After obtaining a used, refurbished Hewlett-Packard "ScanJet G4050"
flatbed, via eBay ($85), I returned the 21c, for a full refund.

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Trick Kodak z1285s to recharge regular rechargable batteries?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d80b9951f5765f8b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:14 pm
From: John Turco

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:
> []
> > Hello, David:
> >
> > Well, I do charge my various Kodak digicams, on their respective
> > docks (of which I own three different models). Afterward, I soon
> > put them back into their carrying cases.
> >
> > Regardless, you're correct in thinking that a camera shouldn't be
> > left mounted on its dock, indefinitely.
>
> John,
>
> I must confess that I probably treat batteries in the worst way possible.
> Immediate I return "home" (whatever that might mean on any particular
> photographic day), I charge the batteries. This stores them fully
> charged, which may not be the best. Then, in spite of using Li-Ion and
> eneloop NiMH, I charge those /before/ going out! Both the main batteries
> and the spares. I've never had a camera which needed a dock, though,
> always batteries or cells you could remove.
>
> Oh, well!
>
> Cheers,
> David

Hello, David:

Kodak's "EasyShare" docks are intended for convenience, mainly. They're not
truly "needed," as the cameras' battery packs/cells are always removable.

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 11:17 pm
From: "David J Taylor"

John Turco wrote:
[]
> Hello, David:
>
> Kodak's "EasyShare" docks are intended for convenience, mainly.
> They're not truly "needed," as the cameras' battery packs/cells are
> always removable.
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

Interesting, John. I had always been put off such cameras because of the
dock (and the poor reputation of the software). I would still look at
Panasonic first were I in the market for something other than a DSLR.

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A newbie request help selecting digital camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:14 pm
From: John Turco

nospam wrote:

<heavily edited for brevity>

> current dslrs are 12-15 megapixels and that completely negates any
> advantage a 4.7 megapixel foveon might have. in fact, in dpreview's
> dp1 review they said it didn't come close to a 10 megapixel nikon d60.
> this does not bode well for the forthcoming sd-15, by the way.

Hello, nospam:

The Kodak "Z1485 IS" features 14 MP, and it's just a "lowly," little
P&S model. <g>

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How Much Is That Keystone In The Window
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e17c686a87fa7756?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:17 pm
From: John Turco

tony cooper wrote:
>
> I drove over to Cocoa, Florida, today. In the downtown area there's a
> store that's full of junk (or treasures, depending on your interest)
> that's been there for over 30 years. I've been in it and purchased
> some things, but it's now closed and doesn't look like it's been open
> for a couple of years.
>
> I shot this through a very dusty window:
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/1474lab.jpg

Hello, Tony:

Are you claiming Keystone manufactured the two antiques, shown in
your photograph? If so, and it's the same "Keystone Camera Company"
I recall (which went bankrupt, in 1991), then, I thought that it
only made movie equipment, until 1973?

(In '73, Keystone introduced the first camera with built-in
electronic flash. It was a 126 model, and dubbed the "Everflash,"
appropriately enough. <g>)

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AT&T Usenet Netnews Service Shutting Down
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2e3799354b816db1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:23 pm
From: John Navas

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:53:40 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <170620091753404201%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <l8ii35tchkksurrq86bk69214vnh8vji6l@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Any ISP who wanted to filter binaries groups had the option to do so.
>>
>> Sure, but that would result in complaints from users.
>> Might as well just do away with Usenet altogether.
>
>doing away with usenet altogether would result in *more* complaints.

Probably about the same number of complaints from the same small
minority that isn't worth the expense and hassle.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Panasonic now Locking in Batteries
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/22d6b50a72798623?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:26 pm
From: John Navas

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:18:04 +1200, Woger <woger@woger.net.ru> wrote in
<k75j3592qft940chu4s6irs1461mvv0ukl@4ax.com>:

>Are other camera makers doing this so you can use 3rd party batteries?
>
>This to me seems illegal as you should have the choice like you do with a
>car.

What the heck are you ranting about?

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 10:01 pm
From: Woger

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:26:35 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:18:04 +1200, Woger <woger@woger.net.ru> wrote in
><k75j3592qft940chu4s6irs1461mvv0ukl@4ax.com>:
>
>>Are other camera makers doing this so you can use 3rd party batteries?
>>
>>This to me seems illegal as you should have the choice like you do with a
>>car.
>
>What the heck are you ranting about?

Cameras will not work if you use 3rd party batteries, ie None Panasonic ones..

"Panasonic has released firmware updates for its latest digital cameras
including the GH1, G1, ZS3 and TS1. The new firmware can identify genuine
Panasonic batteries and prevents the use of any third party battery packs. The
company says it has taken this move to ensure safety of its users against
possible injuries because of overcharging, internal heating or short circuit
in third-party batteries. "

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

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