rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* New foto of my small model ship. - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7497445075c878e7?hl=en
* what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
* New Mandate: Punography - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
* Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go - 6 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
* Converting old laptop to PC monitor and digital frame... - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3009de7932c60dea?hl=en
* Close-Up is available for viewing - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/21a334c20daf593b?hl=en
* Militant Rain of Digital Cameras a stones throw away from the pond - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/85ed385717884e9b?hl=en
* New Portugese convertible !!!! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/82d9d8b041ec3d8c?hl=en
* Spring Pictures - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15229fadc7315e84?hl=en
* Color matching with Nikon D80 & D90 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/26f93a0b3e4b7bbd?hl=en
* Wetbacks Love The D3x!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/30f3b592afc750a7?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New foto of my small model ship.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7497445075c878e7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 12:37 pm
From: Twibil
On Apr 21, 9:51 am, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/burgerbahn/steam.html
>
> The latter set is awesome.
Problem with most models of European trains is that they make the
wheel flanges circa 5 times over-sized, and as a result they look like
toys even when they're in a well-modeled setting.
See this photo of an American prototype engine for comparison.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727@N03/3438725853/sizes/o/
~Pete
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 1:34 pm
From: tony cooper
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:51:18 -0700, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>bugbear wrote:
>> 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
>>
>The latter set is awesome.
>
>Alexander- What is the purpose of your post?
Alexander is evidently a quite skilled model maker. He's chosen a
photographic style that evidently, in his opinion, makes the models
look more like real ships than a sharply focussed photo would. The
examples "bugbear" furnished are very sharp and clear, but the result
is that we clearly know we are looking at scale models.
What purpose does Alexander need? He does good work, he's proud of
it, and he wants to share his efforts. What more purpose does anyone
need in sharing photos?
I really don't understand why people - "bugbear", in this case - feel
the need to knock what they don't particularly like. Unless Alexander
asks for a critique and suggested improvements in technique, STFU
unless you have something positive to say.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 2:58 pm
From: John McWilliams
Twibil wrote:
> On Apr 21, 9:51 am, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/burgerbahn/steam.html
>> The latter set is awesome.
>
> Problem with most models of European trains is that they make the
> wheel flanges circa 5 times over-sized, and as a result they look like
> toys even when they're in a well-modeled setting.
>
> See this photo of an American prototype engine for comparison.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727@N03/3438725853/sizes/o/
That was a detail I overlooked, but once I saw it, that's all I saw.
Was it for the purpose of keeping the little guys on the little tracks?
--
john mcwilliams
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 3:43 pm
From: Twibil
On Apr 21, 2:58 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Twibil wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 9:51 am, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/burgerbahn/steam.html
> >> The latter set is awesome.
>
> > Problem with most models of European trains is that they make the
> > wheel flanges circa 5 times over-sized, and as a result they look like
> > toys even when they're in a well-modeled setting.
>
> > See this photo of an American prototype engine for comparison.
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727@N03/3438725853/sizes/o/
>
> That was a detail I overlooked, but once I saw it, that's all I saw.
> Was it for the purpose of keeping the little guys on the little tracks?
Yup. Exactly. But it's an un-needed holdover from the days when these
things were toys that ran on cheap track layed on the living-room
carpet.
On decent trackwork, both locos and cars will stay on the rails with
no problems using either scale or very-close-to-scale flanges, and
since the goal is to make the trains look -and behave- as much like
the prototype as possible, smaller flanges have increasingly gained
popularity with scale modelers; at least in the US.
~Pete
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:12 pm
From: John McWilliams
Twibil wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:58 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Twibil wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 9:51 am, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/burgerbahn/steam.html
>>>> The latter set is awesome.
>>> Problem with most models of European trains is that they make the
>>> wheel flanges circa 5 times over-sized, and as a result they look like
>>> toys even when they're in a well-modeled setting.
>>> See this photo of an American prototype engine for comparison.
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727@N03/3438725853/sizes/o/
>> That was a detail I overlooked, but once I saw it, that's all I saw.
>> Was it for the purpose of keeping the little guys on the little tracks?
>
> Yup. Exactly. But it's an un-needed holdover from the days when these
> things were toys that ran on cheap track layed on the living-room
> carpet.
>
> On decent trackwork, both locos and cars will stay on the rails with
> no problems using either scale or very-close-to-scale flanges, and
> since the goal is to make the trains look -and behave- as much like
> the prototype as possible, smaller flanges have increasingly gained
> popularity with scale modelers; at least in the US.
So, is there now a mini-industry that grinds the flanges to near scale??
:-)
Some layouts I've seen with banked curves, smooth gradients, etc. don't
need the flanges anywhere near that big.
--
John McWilliams
==============================================================================
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 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 12:43 pm
From: "Neil Harrington"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:200420090843000310%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gYyOwpJz7I7JFAS9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
> <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
>> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
>> "full frame" in its own system.
>
> you use olympus, right?
>
> the term 'full frame' has meant a 35mm film sized frame, or 24 x 36mm
> for a long time, well before digital. the term originated 50 years ago
> when olympus came out with camera that had a frame size of 18mm x 24mm,
> one half the size of a 35mm negative. olympus called it half frame and
> referred to the standard 35mm camera as full frame. [ . . . ]
Actually there has always been a certain amount of confusion about these
terms.
Thirty-five-millimeter film was first made in the late 1890s I believe, for
use in motion picture cameras. That film, running vertically through the
camera, had a frame size of about 18 x 24 mm. The first 35mm still cameras
(about 1913) used the same film and about the same frame size, still moving
vertically in the camera. When Barnack made the first Leica about a decade
later, he used the same film but moving horizontally in the camera, and with
double the original frame height (now the width).
For that reason, the original 18 x 24 was called single frame and 24 x 36
was called double frame. Later, in 35mm still-camera use, single frame was
called "half frame" (used in cameras like the Mercury of the 1940s, and
later, various Olympus Pens and others) and double frame was called "full
frame" to distinguish it from the half-frame cameras. Since all these terms
were used at the same time, it could be a bit confusing.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:39 pm
From: Kennedy McEwen
In article <mKbvkHPXWb7JFACv@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
<chris@phaedsys.org> writes
>There is no real need to relate the
>digital sensor size to that of one of the many film sizes.
>
That is the way it is, it is a reference to a known standard - live with
it, whether you like it or not.
Oh, and it isn't just film that is used as a reference. All of those
sensors in P&S cameras, 1/1.63", 1/1.8", 1/2.33", 1/2.5" etc. are all
based on the odd definition of a 16mm inch! That non-standard inch
comes from basing the format on vidicon tube sensors, where a 1"
diameter glass tube typically had a usable image diagonal of
approximately 16mm. At no time was this ever compliant with the normal
definition of an inch, but it lives on in imaging because lenses
designed for those 1", 3/4" and 1/2" vidicons and derivatives were all
used with cameras equipped with CCD and CMOS sensors. The nomenclature
remained consistent for compatibility reasons, even though the glass
walls of the tube had long since become history. Just the same with
"full frame" film, cameras and lenses.
>
>So I think it is time to loose this ridiculous idea of "full frame" for
>Digital cameras.
What you "think" is irrelevant, being merely one of 6,770,000,000, and
less if we include your reasoning, which amounts to making every
reference meaningless.
>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.
>
No it isn't, because "full frame" is an established term - whether you
like it or not, does not change that.
Your DX camera is based almost entirely on the 24x36mm format - only the
sensor and mirror are shrunk, the lens flange diameter and working
distance and almost everything else about it is inherited from its
24x36mm film ancestors. As such, you carry essentially a 24x36mm
instrument which only has the capability of providing a 24x16mm image,
which is clearly less than the capabilities of the rest of the camera
system and many of the lenses it supports. Hence, DX can never be
considered "full frame". There is a better argument for 4/3rds use of
the term, since none of the 4/3 cameras inherit 24x36mm capabilities.
Before heading off to tilt at the windmill of "Full Frame" Mr Quixote,
there are a few giants closer to your ivory tower that need to be slain
first. A 16mm inch won't please your wife!
--
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)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Punography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 12:51 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7531c1F162us4U3@mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked
>>>> girl with a
>>>> pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
>>>
>>>A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>>would be language-independent.
>
>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without
>> language...
>> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've
>> heard the
>> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!
>
> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I guess
> it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical problem
> I think purely in terms of mental images of things interacting with
> one another. Not only are no words involved, but it can be quite hard
> to find the words to describe what can be easily seen in the mind's
> eye. It's also famously the case that musical thinking can be very
> detailed and precise yet often impossible to put into words.
>
> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm
The same is true when solving many problems in mathematics.....It's called,
"abstract thinking", and many times words just don't enter into it.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 12:55 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:GL2dnfCROt7f0HDUnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> STILL guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun that
> does not depend on words.
>
Isn't the definition of a pun a "play on words"? - If it is, then a pun that
doesn't depend on words would be impossible.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 1:25 pm
From: tony cooper
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:55:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
>"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>news:GL2dnfCROt7f0HDUnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> STILL guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun that
>> does not depend on words.
>>
>Isn't the definition of a pun a "play on words"? - If it is, then a pun that
>doesn't depend on words would be impossible.
Yes, but I'm approaching the mandate on the basis that photo pun is a
visual scene that *suggests* a common expression. That's not truly a
pun, but I think that's what's being suggest here.
For example, a photograph of someone holding a bird would suggest the
saying "A bird in hand". A second photo of two birds perched in
vegetation would suggest the rest of the expression.
That's how I'm going to approach it, anyway.
The word "pun" seems to confuse everyone, so perhaps the mandate
should be "Photo Phun". (Which is a pun of sorts)
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:54 pm
From: Leon@here.com
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:26:21 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Leon@here.com wrote:
>
>> They say we use 2 halves of our brain differently, one for language and one for
>> graphics. I confess I'm better at graphics than language! When someone asks me
>> to explain what I mean, I often grab a pencil and paper to draw what I mean. I
>> always thought it was because I didn't know the words!
>
>Paint the following words: " Red " in blue paint
> " Green " in purple paint
> " Yellow " in red ...
> etc.
>
>And ask people to tell you the color that the word in painted in...
>
>Some people do it without a pause, others are so caught by the word they
>have to think for a second or two to name the color.
I have a copy of that test here somewhere, I can do iit but it's hard for me!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 12:53 pm
From: "Neil Harrington"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:210420091151028663%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <VJednRaRctJOjHPUnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Neil
> Harrington <not@home.today> 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.
>>
>> Which Contax?
>
> contax ax
>
> <http://photo.net/equipment/contax/ax>
That's very interesting. A new one on me.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 3:12 pm
From: "Colin.D"
ray wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:47:22 -0700, 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.
>
> Except that with an EVF, you're seeing exactly what the sensor DOES see,
> not "the same light that the image capture device will see".
No you are certainly NOT seeing what the sensor sees. A 10 or 12 MP
sensor displayed on an EVF of about one megapixel or less is a joke, not
to mention the increased power drain of the EVF shortening battery
endurance.
Colin D.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 3:16 pm
From: "Wilba"
Neil Harrington wrote:
>> Wilba 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?
>
> Some other camera makers did, e.g. the Revere 33 stereo camera focused
> by moving the pressure plate. But that had fixed lenses, of course. I
> think there would be a problem trying to do that with interchangeable
> lenses.
What kinda problem?
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 3:19 pm
From: Bruce
"whinee" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The EVF is the future, whether you want it or not.
If enough people want DSLRs with reflex mirrors,
that will be the future.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 3:43 pm
From: ray
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:12:42 +1200, Colin.D wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:47:22 -0700, 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.
>>
>> Except that with an EVF, you're seeing exactly what the sensor DOES
>> see, not "the same light that the image capture device will see".
>
> No you are certainly NOT seeing what the sensor sees. A 10 or 12 MP
> sensor displayed on an EVF of about one megapixel or less is a joke, not
> to mention the increased power drain of the EVF shortening battery
> endurance.
>
> Colin D.
The drain of the EVF display is modest and certainly less than a back
panel LCD. 1mp of resolution is perfectly adequate for most photographic
tasks. Please note: I did not say for ALL.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:26 pm
From: John A.
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:44:57 +0800, "Wilba"
<usenet@CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote:
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>> Mirrorless cameras are the future. It's not just the mirror vibration.
>> Getting rid of that mirror allows you to place the lens much closer to
>> the sensor which is beneficial for the image quality.
>
>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?
Dunno. Would there be different ranges of motion required for
different lenses?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Converting old laptop to PC monitor and digital frame...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3009de7932c60dea?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 1:17 pm
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
? "zalek" <zalekbloom@hotmail.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:112bbd51-b988-44a0-a935-391274c954dc@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>I have a very old working Dell laptop. On ebay it is worth $30-50 -
> but screen is perfect. I saw some sites which use whole laptop to
> convert it to a digital frame, but I would like to use screen only,
> without PC part. Also - I would like to use it from time to time as
> screen monitor (using VGA cable).
> Maybe someone knows about a such project - to remove screen, connect
> it to some kind chip with SD,CF or USB flash drive?
>
Sorry, but it's not worth doing it-you'd need somebody to engineer the whole
project, and in the end you'd put so much money and work on that old screen
that it would be better to just buy a new digital frame. What's quite
interesting, though, is somebody built a laptop from a commodore 64-a real
C-64 laptop, with an LCD screen, and instead of the notorious 1541 drive (5
1/4") an SD card reader. But it took him 2 weeks, and he had the plastic
parts custom made with a special CFC machine so the whole thing looked
professionally made.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Close-Up is available for viewing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/21a334c20daf593b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 2:42 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"Draco" <JPDFDA@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:7d2b37d6-972e-4722-9ca0-2768885d57ce@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 12, 8:31 pm, Helen <helensilverb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 8:18 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:35:31 -0400, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote:
> > >After a week delay due to a trip to geek hell, the fine submissions
> > >sent for
> > >the Close Up mandate are on display here:
> > Unknown Submitter - Bless the Child - The idea was good, but the gun
> > should have been pointed directly at the camera for the idea to work.
> > Yes, it might have been less recognizable as a gun without the top of
> > the barrel showing, but I think we would have known.
>
> A mistake was made and my name was not added.
You mean that whenever mistakes are made, your name is mentioned? - :^)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Militant Rain of Digital Cameras a stones throw away from the pond
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/85ed385717884e9b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:20 pm
From: kevinkatovics@email.com
http://bellnexxia.blogspot.com/2009/04/earth-day-2009-earth-day-activities.html
- Yes I think I remember philip he had a militant rain for quite some
time in the uk from amazon to digital cameras to sony to almost every
brand.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Portugese convertible !!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/82d9d8b041ec3d8c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:24 pm
From: "Focus"
70 MPG
http://caldasdarainha.olx.pt/magalhaes-movel-iid-16058871
;-)
--
---
Focus
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:46 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-04-21 16:24:44 -0700, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> said:
> 70 MPG
> http://caldasdarainha.olx.pt/magalhaes-movel-iid-16058871
> ;-)
I gather the driving position is recumbent.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Spring Pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15229fadc7315e84?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:38 pm
From: Robert Coe
On 20 Apr 2009 23:21:05 GMT, "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: > On 17 Apr 2009 22:26:37 GMT, "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote:
: > : Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
: > :
: > : http://tinyurl.com/dhwv88
: > :
: > : or
: > :
: > : http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
: > :
: > : Thanks for looking.
: > :
: > :
: > : Russell
: >
: > When I try to view those images with IE7, they appear *extremely* OOF.
: > Shrinking them way down helps a little, but most of them still look pretty bad
: > and none look really good. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
: >
: > Bob
:
: Bob,
:
: Try using the link to gallery that I just posted above.
I did, and it didn't help. But I figured it out, right after I posted my
earlier message. It turns out that I'm using a slow line, and in most cases
the browser will draw the picture, slowly but in full resolution, from top to
bottom. But not in this case. From that site, the pictures get drawn in very
low resolution, and successive waves of new information make all of them
sharper and sharper. I left the browser open while I composed my message; and
after I sent it, I was surprised to see that the pictures had sharpened up
considerably. So I just kept waiting until the images that others had been
raving about finally materialized. And, yes, they are quite good.
Bob
==============================================================================
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 5:00 pm
From: eNo
On Apr 21, 11:16 am, "whinee" <fac_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The last entry in your site indicates you have discovered why you can only
> do what you want to do with RAW images.
> Why any experienced photographer would expect that in-camera processing from
> one camera model would exactly match another is something I fail to
> understand. The algorithms that control in-camera processing are not
> designed for critical work but to produce results that engineers/designers
> find aesthetically pleasing.
Well, as an engineer, this not-so-experienced photographer would
expect engineer/designers to provide a mechanism to achieve consistent
results across the product line. They do so for the higher end models,
BTW -- the whole point of the D2X... Picture controls. And while
engineers may like certain color profiles better, why they would
change their mind by the time the next model is realized is more
puzzling than expecting different models to give me the same colors,
don't you think? I have a feeling that engineering preference for one
color profile over another had nothing to do with why the D90 and D80
render colors differently. It has to do with limitations or
performance profiles of the underlying electronics.
> I did find your sample noise comparisons of the D80 and D90 useful as the
> latter clearly has significantly lower noise. This can help me justify
> purchasing a camera I want although I really do not need for my diminishing
> time to devote to photography.
I'm glad you found this helpful. The sample photos I posted actually
do little justice to the practical results I get on a weekly basis
when shooting with the D90 in low-lit conditions. It's really a
remarkable piece of electronics.
> Although if the gods are kind and Sony/Nikon lower the price of a full frame
> sensor to more reasonable levels . . .
That D700 would be nice, but I really don't want to afford it right
now.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wetbacks Love The D3x!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/30f3b592afc750a7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:13 pm
From: "Peter"
"Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:MY-dnSCfVO05SF_UnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>> Nice shot. On their way back to Canada now, are they?
>
> Thanks. I don't know.
>
>> I suppose we'll be seeing 'em soon here in Connecticut. A field
>> visible from my windows used to be one of their regular camping and
>> resting spots en route, they'd usually spend a couple of days or more
>> here, but unfortunately that field was developed a few years ago and
>> is all houses now. I've seen them since in a large schoolyard nearby
>> but I doubt they like that as well.
>
> Seems like we got thousands of em here. The population is definitely
> higher
> than it was last year.
>
But they don;t keep their deals. I agreed that I would not poop on the lawn
if they would not poop on my sidewalk.
--
Peter
==============================================================================
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
