rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
* Genuine Fractals - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/48484611a04ef3f9?hl=en
* Color matching with Nikon D80 & D90 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/26f93a0b3e4b7bbd?hl=en
* Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go - 10 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
* New Mandate: Punography - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
* New foto of my small model ship. - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7497445075c878e7?hl=en
* Automatic Synchronization - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/57b2d58f43b64865?hl=en
* Endless stream of "me too" P&S crap released - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7437e6aec8662b70?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:01 am
From: Chris H
In message <755nqnF16sq7iU6@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>Jurgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Jurgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>>>>>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>>>>
>>>> Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
>>>> "digital lenses".
There are lenses designed to be use specifically with digital cameras.
>>>> All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
>>>> the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
>>>> manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
>>>> special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
>>>> illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
>>>> using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>>>
>>>Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?
>>>Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
>
>> As you said yourself, that would be an DX lens or APS-C lens or whatever
>> you want to call it. And as you pointed out yourself it has to do with
>> the size of the image cirlce but nothing, absolutely nothing, with
>> digital versus film.
I was hoping that this thread would not descend into this sort of
stupidity
>It's also really annoying that we specify lens focal lengths in terms
>derived from Napoleon's mistaken estimate of the distance from the
>North pole to Paris. I think what Chris H has stumbled upon is one of
>the really annoying things about language :-)
I think so. Language and marketing. There is no real need to relate the
digital sensor size to that of one of the many film sizes.
I am quite happy with my DX format digital camera. I can see for various
technical reasons why a larger sensor would be advantageous than the
digital "full fame" APS-C sensor :-) but why call it after an obsolete
size from a different technology (probably should not have said
"obsolete" :-)
As I said Nikon have DX and FX digital. Formats. Give it a few more
years and apart from a very few still using 35mm cameras (who will not
accept "full frame" when applied to digital anyway) I think we will
loose the "full frame" when applied to Digital cameras.
You will have DX, FX and MX (?) when the need a size larger than the FX
arrives. In 15-20 years time the vast majority will assume it was just
an alphabetic progression. Nothing to do with film frame sizes.
As now we have "everyone" with P&S I suspect virtually all the
population who don't have a film camera or DSLR will have little or no
idea about wet film any more. My kid's in their 20's certainly don't
(OK I know there is some one out there with a 10-20 year old who still
develops all their own film at home)
So I think it is time to loose this ridiculous idea of "full frame" for
Digital cameras. They are DX and FX (or whatever the Canon, Olympus,
Sony etc equivalent is) The APS-C format is effectively "full Frame"
for Digital cameras.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:46 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:gYyOwpJz7I7JFAS9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
> What is "full frame"?
36X24mm .
> Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
> cameras down to 110 film.
Yep, and they have sizes too.
Originally my father used to process glass negs whole plate, half plate
etc...
where a plate wasn't defined by the size of your meal, but by the glass
negative area
that the image occupied.
>Probably more if you include special purpose
> film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc.
I guess they had their sizes too.
> There are also several formats of digital sensor size.
>
> All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
> their own design parameters.
But not full frame for the pghotgraphic market which I think was pretty
established
as a full frame being 36X24mm, olympus did a half frame camera which meant
you could shoot 72 frames on a 36 exp. roll of film.
> So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
> particular film size?
because if yuor photo is going to be full frame it'd be nice if the sensor
occupied
the full image area.
> Especially when all the lenses for the film
> cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
Why would this be relivetn I';m sure you could get super 8 lens working too
if you could be bother or other projection lenses.
>
> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
> "full frame" in its own system.
It was a comparision, but the fiorst sensors coulded really be made
ecomonical
if they were to measure 24X36mm.
> However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
> grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
> format market to use a larger sensor.
SLRs were in the past trying to capture the medium format market from the
TLRs
and the quarter/half plate pro markets.
Why do you think phiotgraphers had whole plate cameras when they could have
used
TLRs then SLRs then compacts the P&S then 110 then those horide disc
cameras.
It was a drive my manufactures to sell more of their cameras.
> But does it need to be the same
> as the old 35mm film size?
No, but good for comparison.
Does a loaf of bread have to be about a foot long ?
Why not re-define the loaf of bread as 1 inch long.
what difference does it make, none, all you'd do is buy say 144 loaves of
bread
where previously you'd had brought 1 loaf.
>On that score the Medium format cameras do
> have digital backs.
But what size is medium format, meduim as in the ability to contact they
dead ;-)
I remmebr in teh early 70s I question what the term a standard lens meant.
The typicall focal lenths of standard lens were 50mm, 55mm and some 58mm.
So what was standard about them, I was told because they approximated
the field of view of the human eye.
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
Well no, they don;t but we've seen the problems even today the lens focal
length
is given the equavalnet in 35mm (full frame size) which wouldn;t have been
necessary
if they'd started making DSLRs full frame in the first place, but I'm
guessing it was
the cost that they were made smaller.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 6:01 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:CZdWAOLPwJ7JFAn8@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
> SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
> connected to the 35mm film size.
I guess it doesn't but I'd like a pint of milk to be the same
quantity as a pint of beer. It's doesn;t have to be, I could go in a pub and
order a
pint of beer that is only 2/3rds a pint iof milk it doesn;t matter,
I'll just order 33% more pints[1]
Would it matter if your 4 seated car could only seat 3 people ?
The 4 seater could refer to 3 people and a cat, after all I never said
seating space for 4 people I said 4 seats. :-)
We also know how a 'shot' of whisky can be different depending on which
country
yuo are in, but it's nice to have standard points of reference.
[1] probably pay 50% for the privilege ;-)
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 6:54 am
From: Don Stauffer
GregS wrote:
>
> This is what the old lens system uses, and all the new DSLR's,
> else your wide angle goes to hell. Large sensors are better
> today.
>
> greg
In the past, too. It is hard to beat sensor real estate. Bigger is
better, all else being equal- except when there are important size or
weight constraints in camera.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 6:55 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-04-20 08:04:19 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
>
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
Only if you want to use the same lenses the same way as you did before.
Since 35 mm film was so popular, the vast majority of photographers
were used to working with the field of view, perspective and depth of
field they got with lenses on 35 mm film. Even expressing lenses in
terms of "35 mm equivalent" on sensors of other sizes does not produce
the same results.
Otherwise, larger sensors tend to give you more resolution and less
noise. In film, larger formats just gave you more resolution and noise
stayed the same. That is all the difference there is.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 6:50 am
From: "J. Clarke"
whisky-dave wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:CZdWAOLPwJ7JFAn8@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
>>
>> SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
>> connected to the 35mm film size.
>
> I guess it doesn't but I'd like a pint of milk to be the same
> quantity as a pint of beer. It's doesn;t have to be, I could go in a
> pub and order a
> pint of beer that is only 2/3rds a pint iof milk it doesn;t matter,
> I'll just order 33% more pints[1]
>
> Would it matter if your 4 seated car could only seat 3 people ?
> The 4 seater could refer to 3 people and a cat, after all I never said
> seating space for 4 people I said 4 seats. :-)
You've ridden in the back of a Jaguar XK-E 2+2 have you? Although three
people and a cat would be stretching it--two people and two cats perhaps, if
the cats were very good friends . . .
> We also know how a 'shot' of whisky can be different depending on
> which country
> yuo are in, but it's nice to have standard points of reference.
>
>
>
>
> [1] probably pay 50% for the privilege ;-)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Genuine Fractals
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/48484611a04ef3f9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:06 am
From: "David Ruether"
"van dark" <van.dark@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:gsk04v$1e53$1@ns.felk.cvut.cz...
>I should like to instal and use a Genuine Fractals on my PC. Is Genuine Fractals able to run in Windows 2000 and Photoshop 7.0?
> Thanx for reply
Yes, it will run with Win 2000 (but I don't know about
PS-7, but with PS-7 you may not need it...;-) - and I
have a copy to sell, if interested...
--DR
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Color matching with Nikon D80 & D90
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/26f93a0b3e4b7bbd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:07 am
From: eNo
As documented at my Website, http://esfotoclix.com, under the "Color
Matching" link (toward the bottom of the page), I am struggling wtih
how best to color-match the D80 to the D90 in terms of color
rendition.
1) The D80 seems punchier, but less realistic than the D90.
2) The D90 seems more prone to yellowing of colors, especially in
daylight, so I'm thinking my next step should be to offset with WB.
Check it out and let me know what you think.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:31 am
From: "Hans Kruse"
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:755nf6F16sq7iU5@mid.individual.net...
>
> I see you have a brightly lit home :-)
>
Yes, now light has come :-)
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:32 am
From: "Hans Kruse"
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:Ov6dneDHX8duOXDUnZ2dnUVZ8r9i4p2d@posted.plusnet...
> Hans Kruse wrote:
>> You can find a comprehensive study here
>> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/TheSharpestImage/TheSharpestImage-info.html.
>
> Actually, I found a link to a paid for study, not a study.
>
Correct, it is not for free, but really worth the nomial cost.
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:38 am
From: "Hans Kruse"
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2457c9bd9eafea7a98bfb3@news.supernews.com...
> In article <49ed7e81$0$90275$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse says
> ...
>
>> This issue has been known for a long time. MLU is available for that
>> reason.
>
> According to the article:
>
> "it was confirmed that the vibration generated by releasing the shutter
> remains even when a picture is taken after a certain period of time from
> the mirror lockup to prevent a mirror shock"
The shutter release vibrations has nothing to do with getting rid of the
mirror, does it?
That was the whole point of OP as I understood it. On my dslr's (Canon 5D
and 1Ds mk3) I never saw any lack of resolution from slutter release
vibrations as far as I could tell. According to Michael Reichmann from
Luminous Landscape http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/mf-easy.shtml,
shutter relase vibrations is an issue on certain MF cameras. The higher the
resolution goes the larger these issues are.
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 6:14 am
From: "Mr. Strat"
In article
<e0776096-45e4-45bf-8f09-c6cc62dd9bf9@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
> With film, and its low resolution (most of it) this was allowable.
> But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.
Glad to see you're still an imbecile.
When I got my Pentax Spotmatic back in 1969, an instant-return mirror
was a big deal.
The movement in today's DSLRs is almost imperceptible. Going to a
little TV viewer isn't going to change the crappy pictures that most
amateurs produce anyway.
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 6:32 am
From: bugbear
Hans Kruse wrote:
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:Ov6dneDHX8duOXDUnZ2dnUVZ8r9i4p2d@posted.plusnet...
>> Hans Kruse wrote:
>>> You can find a comprehensive study here
>>> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/TheSharpestImage/TheSharpestImage-info.html.
>> Actually, I found a link to a paid for study, not a study.
>>
> Correct, it is not for free, but really worth the nomial cost.
Nominal? 30 bucks?
Many I just have a too low discretionary income.
Here's some free information on the subject (more on focus than mirror slap)
http://www.findatlantis.com/wiki/index.php/Keeping_it_Sharp
BugBear
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 6:58 am
From: Don Stauffer
whinee wrote:
> The EVF is the future, whether you want it or not.
> It is cheaper to manufacture electronic viewing systems than traditional
> mechanical/optical hybrids.
> Cost and not technical issues will dictate future camera design.
> The coming generations of photographers will move up to SLRs from EVF
> P&S cameras and will have no idea what they are missing by not looking
> directly through the lens and seeing the exact same light that the image
> capture device will see.
Not for me. Not until the EVF has as many pixels as the main sensor!
I do a lot of macro work. I don't use AF. In macro work I need to
focus on a particular part of the object or a selected plane of the object.
The AF computers do not yet know enough about macro photography to use
in that situation.
I find even when not doing macro, I find I prefer manual focus. I can
focus where I want to, not where there are edges or features the AF can use.
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 7:00 am
From: "Hans Kruse"
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:T-mdnQJ9npuaVnDUnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> Nominal? 30 bucks?
>
> Many I just have a too low discretionary income.
>
> Here's some free information on the subject (more on focus than mirror
> slap)
>
> http://www.findatlantis.com/wiki/index.php/Keeping_it_Sharp
>
Well, for 30$ you get access to DAP reviews this guy has done and it is
quite a lot and it is very throrough. If you like to look at free stuff
only, there is a lot of it, but some of the valuable stuff you only get
access to paying for it.
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 7:01 am
From: bugbear
Hans Kruse wrote:
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:T-mdnQJ9npuaVnDUnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> Nominal? 30 bucks?
>>
>> Many I just have a too low discretionary income.
>>
>> Here's some free information on the subject (more on focus than mirror
>> slap)
>>
>> http://www.findatlantis.com/wiki/index.php/Keeping_it_Sharp
>>
> Well, for 30$ you get access to DAP reviews this guy has done and it is
> quite a lot and it is very throrough. If you like to look at free stuff
> only, there is a lot of it, but some of the valuable stuff you only get
> access to paying for it.
>
Agreed. I buy books quite often - it was the use of "nominal"
w.r.t. 30 bucks that surprised me.
BugBear
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 7:14 am
From: nospam
In article <01fda57a$0$25471$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Wilba
<usenet@CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote:
> Leaving aside the ergonomics of manual focus, would it be practical to focus
> by moving the sensor, thus doing away with focus within the lens?
contax did that.
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 7:20 am
From: "Hans Kruse"
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:Yf2dndQ_NuZeTHDUnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> Agreed. I buy books quite often - it was the use of "nominal"
> w.r.t. 30 bucks that surprised me.
>
Yes, I know, nominal might not be the best word to describe, but I feel that
30 bucks is ok for a year subscription to the DAP articles plus access to
all existing material. He is doing stuff that I haven't seen anywhere else.
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Punography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 6:36 am
From: John McWilliams
Paul Furman wrote:
> Frank ess wrote:
>
>> Humor is my second-favorite thing, and I'd purely admire if someone
>> could open up that new vista for me.
Gee, I wonder what that first thing might be?
> Puns are inherently bad humor though <g>. Verbal slapstick.
Well, there was this punster who was sure he was good at it. So he
entered a contest for the best short pun, and in fact submitted ten
entries. Did many of them prove to be winners??
No pun intended.
--
john mcwilliams
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New foto of my small model ship.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7497445075c878e7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 6:53 am
From: Alexander Blokhin
http://modelshipsworld.blogspot.com/2009/04/uss-malone-pc-553.html
Please see!
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 7:04 am
From: bugbear
Alexander Blokhin wrote:
> http://modelshipsworld.blogspot.com/2009/04/uss-malone-pc-553.html
>
> Please see!
The models look pretty good, although it's hard to tell
from such poor photographs.
BugBear
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 7:27 am
From: bugbear
bugbear wrote:
> Alexander Blokhin wrote:
>> http://modelshipsworld.blogspot.com/2009/04/uss-malone-pc-553.html
>>
>> Please see!
>
> The models look pretty good, although it's hard to tell
> from such poor photographs.
Try these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kdphotos/sets/72157615849683870/
http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/burgerbahn/steam.html
BugBear
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Automatic Synchronization
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/57b2d58f43b64865?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 7:00 am
From: Don Stauffer
Clo-Clo wrote:
> Any simple way to synchronize 2 or more (preferably identical) digital
> cameras?
>
> Synchronization of the order of 0,1 sec. or better?
>
> The cameras can be cheap and simple (point'n'shoot) or more advanced (DSLR).
>
> I will consider as I said the simplest solution.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Search on digital stereo photography. The stereo enthusiasts are
working on that problem, and have found certain cameras whose accessory
remote inputs allow very good sync.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 7:17 am
From: Allodoxaphobia
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:08:04 +1000, Jeff R. wrote:
> Clo-Clo wrote:
>> "Jeff R." <contact.me@this.ng> wrote
>
>> Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?
>
> Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
> distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far superior.
> Easier for me, at my age, too.
The better technique is to view them wall-eyed, IMO. Maybe that's why
yours did not look 'dramatic' enough -- they were switched
left-to-right? Or, maybe it was the artifacts introduced by sharpening
and compression -- which would be different in each and which would be
more apparent in stereo viewing.
Hint: Viewing them in Firefox with it's image resizing as you resize
the window helps get the centers of the pictures closer to a reasonable
range that can be accommodated by your IPD.
I first learned how to do unaided stereo viewing when I worked one
Summer as a go-fer for a surveyor in the 'bad lands' of western
Colorado's oil shale country (circa 1966). He would lay out two
USGS aerial photographs on the hood of the truck and go wall-eyed to see
the terrain features. It's Way Less head-achy for me than cross-eyed.
Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
* Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Endless stream of "me too" P&S crap released
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7437e6aec8662b70?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 7:15 am
From: "Fred"
> "Rich" <nobrain@nowhere.com> woffled in message
> news:RfWdnbIkx91KKnfUnZ2dnUVZ_j9i4p2d@giganews.com...
>
>
Do not feed the troll.
==============================================================================
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
