Iphone: 26 new messages in 11 topics

26 new messages in 11 topics - digest

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e5821c93abc3b7d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 10:35 am
From: Alan Browne

Sheila wrote:
> get_a_life2@webtv.net wrote:
>> it is from a camera card
>> thanks
>>
>
>
> Oh, then my solution won't work. A few days ago, I accidentally deleted
> my photos on a camera card.

I haven't managed that (yet). Matter of time probably.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 11:36 am
From: Sheila

Alan Browne wrote:
> Sheila wrote:
>> get_a_life2@webtv.net wrote:
>>> it is from a camera card
>>> thanks
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, then my solution won't work. A few days ago, I accidentally
>> deleted my photos on a camera card.
>
> I haven't managed that (yet). Matter of time probably.
>

Well, we were shooting a lot of photos that day, with multiple copies to
the computer and I had a 'senior moment'. Luckily I was just testing my
camera for different settings and didn't have any 'must have' photos on it.

On another thread you answered a comment that I made about sensors
getting too hot in a car. I just checked my manual for both cameras and
it said to store under 122 degrees F.

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 1:01 pm
From: Alan Browne

Sheila wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Sheila wrote:
>>> get_a_life2@webtv.net wrote:
>>>> it is from a camera card
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, then my solution won't work. A few days ago, I accidentally
>>> deleted my photos on a camera card.
>>
>> I haven't managed that (yet). Matter of time probably.
>>
>
>
> Well, we were shooting a lot of photos that day, with multiple copies to
> the computer and I had a 'senior moment'. Luckily I was just testing my
> camera for different settings and didn't have any 'must have' photos on it.
>
> On another thread you answered a comment that I made about sensors
> getting too hot in a car. I just checked my manual for both cameras and
> it said to store under 122 degrees F.

Well, not to belabour it, but a padded camera bag insulates well. Just
keep it in a shaded spot of the car.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Remember, check!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/4311e6502bd1e5aa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 10:48 am
From: Dave Cohen

Cal Ornton wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:59:29 +0000, Henry <henryNOeqitablelife@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> After reading some of the more recent threads I felt the urge
>> to repeat my previous post of a few days ago. It seems to me
>> that there is something quite horrible going on in this ng.
>>
>> You probably are already aware that usenet attracts all sorts of
>> numpties, nutters and malignant entities. This news group is no
>> exception. Indeed it may well have more than its fair share.
>> It seems to me to be infested with brainless trolls who exhibit a
>> nasty malign tendency to dish out aggravation under the
>> guise of "help".
>>
>> My advice would be for you to post your queries to other news
>> groups and consider the replies sent to this one with extreme
>> caution. There are of course genuine people frequenting this
>> news group who will only give good advice but they are in the
>> minority, in my honest opinion that is.
>>
>> I hope this advice helps in your dealings with this news group.
>> The follow-ups will give you hours of mirth.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Henry.
>
> It's people like you who constantly go off topic and post about nonsense that
> ruins any newsgroup.
>
> Here's some on-topic info to help you out. Discuss:
>
>
> 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 (tel-extender) 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 tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
> aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
> their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
> 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
> DSLR and its glass in existence. 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 is
> only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
> glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
> done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
> to get comparable performance in a DSLR 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 10 to 20
> pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit 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, from the obnoxious 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 strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass 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 allow for the deep DOF
> required for excellent macro-photography, 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.
>
> 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!" 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. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
> money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
> problem is. 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.
>
> 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."
>

Gee, I keep reading the same twenty five point post. Are you guys related.
Dave Cohen

==============================================================================
TOPIC: the p&s troll
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/394a6b6e8f462f95?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 10:48 am
From: old.salt@cmaaccess.com

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:02:12 -0800, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>Reposting the same stuff is spamming and against the TOS of every News
>Provider I know of.

I have not seen him reposting the same stuff, please point me
to the message IDs of his spam.
--
I hope you like my photos at www.myspace.com/osalt
If you would like to buy one, e-mail me, prints up
to 30x20 inches.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 10:54 am
From: Mark Roberts

<michaelk@fromCardiff.com> wrote:

>I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention, he wants recognition,
>respect even. As far as I can see he is doing spectacularly well in drawing
>out responses from loads of people. He does seem to be good at what he is
>doing. Why don't lots of us admit that he's good and politely ask him to
>move on? There is;nt much point in him staying here if we all agree he 's a
>pretty good troll. There are 1000's of other groups he might feel challenged
>by. In fact, we could even ask him to drop us a line in a few months
>directing us to the newsgroup he is currently dominating, that would be a
>REAL buzz for him.

The solution is to killfile by message subject line. They're easy to
spot without reading even the first message in the thread.
It's the best way to deal with sociopaths like this morphing troll.

--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 1:22 pm
From: old.salt@cmaaccess.com

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:22:01 -0600, StayOnTopic-Trolls
<stayontopic@usenet.com> wrote:

>Then you'll have to report every DSLR troll that relentlessly posts the same
>misinformed crap.

Good Idea, done.
--
I hope you like my photos at www.myspace.com/osalt
If you would like to buy one, e-mail me, prints up
to 30x20 inches.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 1:22 pm
From: old.salt@cmaaccess.com

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:02:12 -0800, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>Reposting the same stuff is spamming and against the TOS of every News
>Provider I know of.

You are right, after reading your post I took a closer look at
what this guy is doing, and it is indeed spam.
--
I hope you like my photos at www.myspace.com/osalt
If you would like to buy one, e-mail me, prints up
to 30x20 inches.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 500D and 70-200 For Macro
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e68bd9da7d399770?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 10:55 am
From: Paul Furman

Paul wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:2yjRk.6053$c45.4883@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>>> I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the
>>> photos on juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there
>>> with macro I've yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a
>>> macro lens, I am considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that
>>> it will only make it half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the
>>> advantage of maybe having a better working distance and also won't
>>> take up much room in the bag meaning I will always have it with me.
>>>
>>> The other option is using Kenko extension tubes on my 50mm lens,
>>> whereby using the 36 and 12 extension tubes will effectively make it
>>> just under life size, but is maybe not as flexible and will suffer
>>> from more light loss than the 500D.
>>>
>>> I know the 500D is no replacement for a proper macro lens, but anyone
>>> have any experience using a 500D with a 70-200?
>>
>> Yes I have a Canon 500D +2 diopter 2-element closeup lens (77mm
>> thread) and use it on the front of a 70-200/2.8 VR and other lenses
>> with step-down rings. Great for butterfly & bee chasing with the VR &
>> no light loss.
>>
>> Where it suffers is reflective subjects such as shiny insects, there
>> is more flare/ghosting from reflections back & forth between all those
>> chunks of glass. The bokeh suffers too with those kinds of strong
>> highlights. As with extension tubes, it's going to be asking more from
>> the center of the lens than the lens was designed for. Speaking of
>> centers... I've used the 500D on a 300mm f/2.8 (112mm thread) by
>> cutting a 77mm hole in a makeshift plastic cap and that works fine
>> because at closest focus you only use the center anyways. So a smaller
>> one might work on a 70-200.
>
>
> Hello Paul. How does the bokeh suffer with highlights?

Bright rings on the edge of out-of-focus highlights. It's hard to say if
it's worse though, I'd need a 200mm macro lens to compare. I couldn't
find examples of that but here's some of/with the 500D

http://edgehill.net/Misc/misc-photos/11-13-07-cpu/pg1pc3
http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/9-20-07-300mm
http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/5-17-07-macro/pg1pc3

> Parts of the image washed out?
>
>

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: P & S cameras
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/070ba95970b289dc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 11:04 am
From: Sheila

Alan Browne wrote:
> Sheila wrote:
>
>> I might add, that in hot weather I don't leave my camera in the car
>> because I've heard that the heat may destroy the sensor,
>
> Keep it in a padded camera bag and it won't heat up enough to matter.
>
> For that matter, as long as direct sunlight (through the car glass)
> doesn't reach it, don't worry.
>
> If you're in a very hot place (Death Valley in July) then just leave the
> windows cracked open half an inch.
>
> The spec for my DSLR is 60C (140F) for storage. Check your manual. Does
> your car ever get that hot? (Thermometer in a shaded part of the car
> will tell).
>
>

Alan,

Thanks for the info, maybe I shouldn't worry about it so much, I
thought about putting my camera in a Styrofoam cooler, of course without
the ice.

Also, I didn't know that this info was in the manuals, I'll check mine.

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 11:08 am
From:

"Sheila" <swdalton@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> If that is all they use for a camera, they will have no decent photo
> memories to look at when they grow older.
>
> --
> Sheila
> http://swdalton.com

I have often thought the same. Now and again I find the odd black and white
negative in a box or behind a cupboard and scan it only to find that there
might be one frame that I had never printed because for some reason it had
not looked right at the time. Its a weird feeling to print a neg after its
been ignored 25 years. Also, many old photos that I had ripped up years
ago are being reprinted from the negs.

But then, this loss of photo memories is symptomatic of the age we live in.
There are no more post cards or letters to stash away, hardly any stamps on
our passports, less and less paper bank statements to put away, no newspaper
cuttings of interest to put away, soon there will be no books. There will be
a future time when people will only have a proveable memory that will go
back about 6 months, I imagine the state, religion , some dictator or some
other scary entity will step in to provide us with convenient memories. In
some ways I'm glad that I won't be around.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 11:49 am
From: Sheila

michaelk@fromCardiff.com wrote:
> "Sheila" <swdalton@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> If that is all they use for a camera, they will have no decent photo
>> memories to look at when they grow older.
>>
>> --
>> Sheila
>> http://swdalton.com
>
> I have often thought the same. Now and again I find the odd black and white
> negative in a box or behind a cupboard and scan it only to find that there
> might be one frame that I had never printed because for some reason it had
> not looked right at the time. Its a weird feeling to print a neg after its
> been ignored 25 years. Also, many old photos that I had ripped up years
> ago are being reprinted from the negs.
>
> But then, this loss of photo memories is symptomatic of the age we live in.
> There are no more post cards or letters to stash away, hardly any stamps on
> our passports, less and less paper bank statements to put away, no newspaper
> cuttings of interest to put away, soon there will be no books. There will be
> a future time when people will only have a proveable memory that will go
> back about 6 months, I imagine the state, religion , some dictator or some
> other scary entity will step in to provide us with convenient memories. In
> some ways I'm glad that I won't be around.
>
>

Last week, we were traveling through the Smoky Mountains and at an
overlook, we got out our cameras and took some photos. There was a
woman with a cell phone taking a picture and she said 'she hoped she got
a good photo for her wallpaper', then snapped the photo, looked at it
and commented that she got a great photo. I can just imagine it on her
computer screen.

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 12:21 pm
From: "David J Taylor"

Sheila wrote:
[]
> Even though the SLRs are getting smaller all the time they are still
> too big to carry around all the time. It seems that a lot of times
> when I'm out for the day, shopping etc, I see something I would like
> to take a photo of but my camera is at home. I might add, that in
> hot weather I don't leave my camera in the car because I've heard
> that the heat may destroy the sensor, so if I take my SLR, I have to
> carry it everywhere I go on these trips.

Sufficient heat may destroy /anything/ mechanical or electronic - I don't
think that the sensor is particularly vulnerable. Perhaps other materials
may deform out of accurate shape first?

David

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 1:05 pm
From: Alan Browne

Sheila wrote:

> Last week, we were traveling through the Smoky Mountains and at an
> overlook, we got out our cameras and took some photos. There was a
> woman with a cell phone taking a picture and she said 'she hoped she got
> a good photo for her wallpaper', then snapped the photo, looked at it
> and commented that she got a great photo. I can just imagine it on her
> computer screen.

A typical computer screen is only 1 - 2.5 Mpix or so, so she might have
a reasonable result if the conditions were in the sweet spot of the
camera and if she didn't move when the release went off.

My son's iPhone is difficult to hold still while taking a photo 'cause
it has a touchscreen button to release the shutter...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: One hundred reason why a DSLR is better than a P&S.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/fe40f0c78de06a71?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 11:10 am
From:

"Anonymous" <none@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:gf2kn2$k64$1@aioe.org...
> They are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much
> better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better
> cameras.They are much better cameras.They are much better cameras. They
> are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much
> better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better
> cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better cameras.They
> are much better cameras.They are much better cameras. They are much better
> cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They
> are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much
> better cameras. They are much better cameras.They are much better
> cameras.They are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They
> are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much
> better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better
> cameras. They are much better cameras.They are much better cameras.They
> are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much
> better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better
> cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They
> are much better cameras.They are much better cameras.They are much better
> cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They
> are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much
> better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better
> cameras.They are much better cameras.They are much better cameras. They
> are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much
> better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better
> cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better cameras.They
> are much better cameras.They are much better cameras. They are much better
> cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They
> are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much
> better cameras. They are much better cameras.They are much better
> cameras.They are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They
> are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much
> better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better
> cameras. They are much better cameras.They are much better cameras.They
> are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much
> better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better
> cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They
> are much better cameras.They are much better cameras.They are much better
> cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They
> are much better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much
> better cameras. They are much better cameras. They are much better
> cameras.They are much better cameras.They are much better cameras. They
> are much better cameras. They are much better cameras.

To much work and not enuogh play makes Johny a dull boy.... ho ho ho

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor
typo corrections)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/541401c3b2747095?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 11:16 am
From:

"Toby" <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message > Apparently the lens on the
G10 is quite good. However the high (even medium)
> ISO performance is abominable. Resolution at low ISO is like a
> medium-grade DSLR--not bad. But like all P&Ss it is much too menu-driven
> for my tastes--no way to quickly change exposure comp on a dial, or
> shutter speed/aperture combo in program mode. And the lack of an optical
> viewfinder is a fatal flaw IMO, especially in bright conditions. I hate
> having to rely on flaky AF and there is no good way to focus manually
> quickly.
>
> Still and all, for a pocket cam, it's great (in sunlight).
>
> Toby
Are you sure about the optical viewfinder? The G9 has one. I agree that
at low ISO its passable in quality, which mean carrying a tripod a lot of
the time. Being menu driven is a problem in the cold because I lose fine
control in my fingers! And the manual focusing is a total pain, I have to
turn the dial with a finger nail. My other gripe is the lack of remote
shutter control. In summary, I have a G9 and use it rarely. I'm glad to
have it though.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a53e34f2dbe14272?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 11:29 am
From: Paul Furman

dj_nme wrote:
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?
>>
>> Simple. If it didn't have a mirror (or surface that acts like a
>> mirror) it wouldn't be a single lens REFLEX. The term reflex means it
>> has a mirror in the viewfinding train. This is true film OR digital.
>>
>> Note that a "twin lens reflex" also generally has a 45 degree folding
>> mirror also.
>
> The TLR (twin lens reflex) cameras which I've used or examined seem to
> have a fixed mirror in the viewfinder.
> It doesn't have to move out of the way, as does in a SLR camera.
> They may have a folding hood for the focus screen or an interchangeable
> viewfinder prism eyepiece or a peep-sight "sports finder" as accessories.

Ah, that's what those are all about, thanks. Presumably they could use
cheaper optics in the viewfinder lens, or is it simply a duplicate lens?

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 12:36 pm
From: Alfred Molon

In article <f06bh4tsdh79j9rs5g0b0i2bbcmlnqt4l0@4ax.com>, clayton J
says...

> You've never heard of filter step-up rings that allow you to use larger filters
> on your cameras? They cost about $4-5 from reputable dealers. I always buy
> oversized filters so I may use the same ones on all my cameras. I have to travel
> light and for great distances with minimal equipment and still provide for the
> most adaptable "anything can happen" configurations. I use the step-up rings on
> the cameras with smaller filter-thread diameters. No vignetting ever, no matter
> how many that you need to stack.
>
> You people seriously need some remedial photography classes ... or something.

Sure, but I have already spent 100+ Euro on this high quality slim line
polariser filter. And no, Sony didn't tell me that I had to use an
oversized filter with a step-up ring. They never mentioned anywhere, so
how was I supposed to know that you need an oversized polariser filter?
All cameras I've been using previously didn't have this vignetting
problem.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-
marriage ban.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 11:54 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

HEMI-Powered <none@none.sn> wrote:
>Seon Ferguson added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>> I favor equal rights for all Americans. "Anti American
>>> traitors" think they have the right to take rights away from
>>> others without their consent. Shame on you.
>>>
>> Do you believe that gay people should be given the same
>> freedom's as other American's?
>
>Yes, EXCEPT the right to cohabitate and the right to marry. That is
>reserved by God

Stop lying about God, blasphemer.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 12:08 pm
From: "Rev. Diva Schematic"

trent-lockwood wrote:
> You do realize that the only reason that "Hemi-Powered" is going on about this
> is that this is the only socially-acceptable way that he has to interact with
> gay people like himself. He's this desperate for attention from any gay people
> and will do anything in his power to try to perpetuate this, his only contact
> with his own kind.
>
> Homophobes are always just highly desperate closet-cases.
>
>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:13:54 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
> <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>> On what basis is the Federal government supposed to
>>>> vet laws against Biblical standards?
>>> The old fashioned way -- just ask the people.
>> Wrong. If the people in a state passed a law declaring Christinaity as the
>> official religion, would that be legal? There is nothing in the Declaration
>> of Independence or the Constitution that even implies that any particular
>> religious belief (other than a weak nod to Deism to placate those more
>> traditionally religious than Jefferson or Franklin) is to serve as the basis
>> of American government.
>>
>> If a law is passed (or rejected) to acquiesce to a particular religious
>> point of view, how is that _not_ "establishment of religion"?
>>
>> You forget that people's perceptions of what is moral or just has changed,
>> and is still changing. You can easily quote the Bible to justify slavery or
>> the second-class status of women -- but our views of such things are not the
>> same as they were even 50 years ago.
>>
>> When you argue that same-sex marriage should not become part of law, on the
>> basis of what _you_ think the Bible says, how is your argument _not_ a
>> request for the "establishment of religion"?
>>
>> As to "the state" deciding as to what does or does not comprise marriage...
>> That is a leftover from the days of theocracy. One of the reasons for social
>> and economic progress in the West has been the gradual separation of church
>> and state, allowing _greater_ personal and religious freedom. Same-sex
>> marriage (or civil unions) is a further step in that direction.
>>
>> As marriage exists for many reasons other than procreation, there is nothing
>> illogical about same-sex marriage. And it's not new -- a berdache sometimes
>> married another man (qv, "Patterns of Culture").
>>
>> You should read "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe". It's so scholarly
>> you'll probably fall asleep, but its discussion of marriage in Western
>> culture alone justifies reading it. (And, yes, it is heavily footnoted.)
>>
>>
>>> The prohibition against establishment of a state religion is often
>>> mis-quoted and has absolutely NO-thing to do with setting legal
>>> standards for behavior approved by a 2/3 majority of the people.
>> It does if the reason for passing or rejecting a law is soley or principally
>> religious.
>>
>> The argument "I object to same-sex marriage because it violates what the
>> Bible says is moral behavior" is no argument at all, because you're
>> appealing to a specific religious belief.
>>
>> Do you recall "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto
>> God the things which are God's"? Jesus was speaking metaphorically of
>> keeping the material and the spiritual separate, but the point is
>> well-taken -- government and religion do not mix. There is nothing in his
>> teachings that recommends joining the two, and indeed, Christianity began
>> its decline (including its healing ministry) when it became a state
>> religion.
>>
>> This is not a rhetorical question... We live under a civil government, not a
>> religious government. Why is it so important to you that every aspect of
>> government conform to your religious beliefs? I'd like an answer.
>>
>> By the way, you'll note that Massachusetts citizens are not dying of the
>> plague, nor has the state fallen off into the ocean.
>>
>>
>>> Don't believe,
>>> it? Cite the passage(s) in the Constitution that uphold your
>>> beliefs, but don't bother with the First Amendment because that's
>>> not what it says. Instead, start with the 10th and move forward
>>> from there. Oh, and the "due process of law" clause of the 14th
>>> Amendment DOES give the government the power to decide these
>>> matters so long as you have your day in court - up until a new
>>> strong law, but preferably, a Consitutional Amendment is passed
>>> forever defining marriage as ONLY a union of one man and one
>>> woman.
>> How about "equal protection of the law"? This amendment was designed to keep
>> Southern states from writing laws that treated ex-slaves differently. Why
>> not argue that, as same-sex marriage is logical, that gay men and women
>>
>>
>>>> And what right do you have to tell me how I should live my
>>>> life -- especially when I had no say-so in the matter?
>>> Because you cost ME money. That gives me the right to tell you
>>> that you may NOT take advantage of marriage laws designed to
>>> provide tax advantages nor does it give you rights to commit
>>> sexual perversions or to raise children in a clearly immoral home.
>>
>>> And, in case you don't know, willie boi, sodomy is still a
>>> crime in many places.
>> Oooh, oooh, I'm so scared. I'm going to go hide in my closet.
>>
>> By "many places", do you mean within the US? I have to inform you that the
>> Supreme Court outlawed sodomy laws (that is, laws which prohibit certain
>> forms of private, consensual sexual behavior) just a few years ago. In fact,
>> the Court reversed its previous decision in the same Texas case, with one
>> Court member saying "How could we have been so wrong?".
>>
>> This case is an excellent example of how values change. A century ago, it
>> was considered perfectly acceptable for the law to prohibit private,
>> consensual behavior that was deemed bad for society. We no longer feel that,
>> in a democracy, the government should be regulating private behavior. This
>> came about in part because of the increasing separation of the state from
>> religious and private matters.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The last time I looked, there is simply NO protections in the
>>> Constitution of the United States that give anyone the right to
>>> a specific form of union, civil or religious.
>> The founders saw no reason to address the subject -- or any number of
>> hundreds of other matters best left to the states.
>>
>>
>>> But, if I had my way,
>>> we would start state by state enacting a constitutional amendment
>>> banning queer marriage - or more correctly, defining marriage as
>>> a union of one man and one woman - as just happened in
>>> California. Along the way, there should be enough of a
>>> groundswell of support from people that still have family values
>>> and a sense of morality to get the federal government to pass an
>>> Amendment bill that forever ends this debate and get it ratified
>>> by 2/3 of the states.
>> In other words, you would remove the states' traditional right to make their
>> own decisions about such things?
>>
>> One of the things that must horribly scare you is the Constitution's
>> requirement that states respect each other's laws. (I'll get killed for
>> saying this, but the Dred Scott decision was legally -- though not
>> morally -- correct.)
>>
>>
>>> You want to debate family values, bring it on!
>> Well, I hate Mom, apple pie, and the flag. (I'm not sure about Chevrolet.)
>> Is that a sufficient start?
>>
>> Homosexual desire is a normal part of mammalian biology. The overwhelming
>> majority of homosexual men and women were "born that way". You don't believe
>> this. For you to accept it would so upset your world view -- because it
>> implies that God created people in such a way that this could occur, or that
>> He permits it.
>>
>> It's true -- homosexuals can't reproduce. But that's not a problem -- we
>> have people like you and Dick Chaney and Phyllis Schlafly doing it for us --
>> simply by having born-queer children.
>>
>> The probability that any male child will turn out queer is about 3%. (That's
>> a guesstimate -- there are no really reliable figures.) Should this occur
>> with one of your kids, what will you do? Curse God? Try to find the
>> (non-existant) man who seduced your boy and murder the man? Kill yourself?
>> Kill your son?
>>
>>
>>>> PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a
>>>> legitimate e-mail address.
>>> Nobody provides a legitimate E-mail, you idiot!
>> I do. I'm not afraid. You can even look up my phone number and address, if
>> you like.
>>

What Mr Hemi has failed to look at is the WHOLE book of Leviticus.
For example, he says gays are sinners.
Let's see, if by the same standard, Mr Hemi, is a sinner also.

"Leviticus 19:27 The corners of your heads - That is your temples, ye
shall not cut off the hair of your heads round about your temples"

Ever shave your face? That's against the rules. TO HELL WITH YOU.
-

"Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy
cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with
mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come
upon thee."

So, ever planted more than one vegetable next to another in a garden.
GET TO HELL, NOW. Ever wear mixed fibre clothing? HELL, HELL, HELL!
-

DO you like Easter? Ever get your kid a pet rabbit, or even a toy
one...."Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but
divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

Well you and your child, STRAIGHT TO HELL, god dislikes bunnies.
-

Mmmmmmmmm seafood. Like your shrimp and your crab? "Leviticus 11:10 And
all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all
that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters,
they shall be an abomination unto you" YOU'RE AN ABOMINATION, LIKE THEM
HOMOSEXUALS.
-

Yay, (n) team won the league, I'm going to get a celebratory tattoo.
"Leviticus 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the
dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."

Off to HELL.
-

YUMMY! I am going to have a steak, no, I'm going to McDonalds...oh, hang
on, I see where this is going.

"Leviticus 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or
of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of
blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and
will cut him off from among his people."

No Hamburgers for you my friend, unless you enjoy the hot fresh fires of
HELL.

Please tell me HEMI how you rated on the one to sinner scale...

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 1:07 pm
From: "Rev. 11D Meow!"

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wroatsed...
>
> Yes, EXCEPT the right to cohabitate and the right to marry. That is
> reserved by God for one man and one woman and anything else is
> morally wrong.
>

Your bible is gay.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 1:08 pm
From: "Rev. 11D Meow!"

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wroatsed...
>
> Yes, EXCEPT the right to cohabitate and the right to marry. That is
> reserved by God for one man and one woman and anything else is
> morally wrong.
>

You bible is soooooooo GAY!

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 1:10 pm
From: "Rev. 11D Meow!"

"HEMI-Powered" <president@whitehouse.org> wroatsed...
>
> Yes, EXCEPT the right to cohabitate and the right to marry. That is
> reserved by God for one man and one woman and anything else is
> morally wrong.
>

Your bible is so GAY JESUS weeps for ewe, sheep-fuckee.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 1:21 pm
From: Thanatos

In article <gf4er0$juh$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Thanatos" <atropos@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:atropos-ED3652.10553808112008@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <gf41a2$7bg$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a legitimate
> > > e-mail address.
>
> > Why does not wanting one's in-box deluged with spam make one a coward?
>
> I give my real address, and my in-box isn't clogged with spam.

You're lucky, then.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: America 2042: WHITE MINORITY, TONY COOPER SPAMMED 5 NGs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/ff455b18f8128fca?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 12:40 pm
From: "Rudy"

How about putting a STOP to the spamming of 5 unrelated Newsgroups with this
TRASH.

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:70o1h41gnt752ojrtulighh8uhpcsb217d@4ax.com...

> Really? Fifty years ago I was in college

> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sigma's New Lens Is Now Available!! [OT - politics]
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/2b0b8721f86b8173?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 12:42 pm
From: Paul Furman

Peter Chant wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> That may be your system, but it is not our system in the US. The
>> majority of voters in the US do not join a party, pay party dues, or
>> become members of a political party. Unless we choose to vote in
>> either the Republican or Democratic primary, we don't need to declare
>> our party affiliation.
>
> So bascially the primarys are internal party matters. Albeit the partys let
> anyone vote who wants to "register".
>
> Is there to stop anyone registering as both a republican and democrat and
> voting in primaries for both sides? You could vote for who you thought was
> the "lame duck" for the side you did not favour.

You can't register for both but some states allow voting for both in the
primaries... or maybe that's just allow voting outside your party in the
primary... either way it's up to each state. Most do not allow voting
outside your party.

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

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

Iphone

26 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments: