Ping WHISKERS

Ping WHISKERS


Hey, did I see you hanging out in here? :)

I just got my first digital p-n-s camera. I shopped quite a bit and ended
up with a Fuji A820. My needs were: something cheap and small to toss in
the car and/or my gear bag for work, because I don't routinely carry my
DSLR stuff with me, and I got tired of wishing a routinely had at least
snapshot capabilities.

My choice was based on liking my Fuji S7000 DSLR; reviews I'd read on the
camera's sensor; a 4X optical zoom instead of the 3X most cameras in that
price range offered; 2.5" screen; 8MP, 3296 x 2474; AA batteries rather
than something proprietary.

It's not exactly a shirt-pocket compact at 1.3 inches thick and 7.5 ounces
(with batteries), but it's okay for my hip pocket or a jacket.

I like it lots.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: * improve-usenet.org
Blinky: * blinkynet . net

Re: Ping WHISKERS

On 2008-01-17, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>
> Hey, did I see you hanging out in here? :)

Damn those sharky super-senses!

> I just got my first digital p-n-s camera. I shopped quite a bit and ended
> up with a Fuji A820. My needs were: something cheap and small to toss in
> the car and/or my gear bag for work, because I don't routinely carry my
> DSLR stuff with me, and I got tired of wishing a routinely had at least
> snapshot capabilities.
>
> My choice was based on liking my Fuji S7000 DSLR; reviews I'd read on the
> camera's sensor; a 4X optical zoom instead of the 3X most cameras in that
> price range offered; 2.5" screen; 8MP, 3296 x 2474; AA batteries rather
> than something proprietary.
>
> It's not exactly a shirt-pocket compact at 1.3 inches thick and 7.5 ounces
> (with batteries), but it's okay for my hip pocket or a jacket.
>
> I like it lots.

Good :))

Mine's a Samsung V700; 7.1 Megapixels, 6½ oz, and 1¼" thick - and it goes
into my shirt pockets OK when asked to. Samsung owned the Rollie brand and
kept it in production for a while, and I like Rollie kit - and some of
that that know-how seems to have rubbed off on Samsung now they make their
own cameras.

The best camera for any occasion is the one you happen to have with you, so
portability is not to be sneezed at. I chose to put up with a 'special'
battery in trade-off for a proper (if miniscule) optical view-finder and
more manual control than is offered by most modern compacts. 3x zoom range
was all there was in my budget at the time - but I managed for decades
with fixed lenses on compact cameras, so that feels like luxury to me.

I had good experiences with film-based Fuji cameras so I can understand
your loyalty.

My 'big' camera outfit is Leica M stuff, and I'm still a film fan in
principle - but I confess that the digicam is the one that takes the
pictures, these days, "because it's there". The camera in my latest
mobile phone doesn't do a bad job either, considering. One of these days
I'll get a film scanner to do justice to the Leica stuff; maybe even set
up my B & W darkroom again, if I get space.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Ping WHISKERS

Whiskers wrote:

> On 2008-01-17, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Hey, did I see you hanging out in here? :)
>
> Damn those sharky super-senses!

:)

>> I just got my first digital p-n-s camera. I shopped quite a bit and
>> ended up with a Fuji A820. My needs were: something cheap and small to
>> toss in the car and/or my gear bag for work, because I don't routinely
>> carry my DSLR stuff with me, and I got tired of wishing a routinely had
>> at least snapshot capabilities.
>>
>> My choice was based on liking my Fuji S7000 DSLR; reviews I'd read on
>> the camera's sensor; a 4X optical zoom instead of the 3X most cameras in
>> that price range offered; 2.5" screen; 8MP, 3296 x 2474; AA batteries
>> rather than something proprietary.
>>
>> It's not exactly a shirt-pocket compact at 1.3 inches thick and 7.5
>> ounces (with batteries), but it's okay for my hip pocket or a jacket.
>>
>> I like it lots.
>
> Good :))
>
> Mine's a Samsung V700; 7.1 Megapixels, 6? oz, and 1?" thick - and it

I confess I didn't look at Samsung. But I did get a 24" 1920x1200 Samsung
monitor last month. I'm a *fan* of Samsung, but......I don't think of
them when I think "camera". Ditto Panasonic and Sony; didn't look at
them. I come from the '60s (as do my film cameras<g>), when (of the
brands still around!) there was Nikon, Minolta, Mamiya, Pentax, Contax,
Ricoh, Leica, Hasselblad, etc. (My film cameras are a Pentax 35 and a
Mamiya 6x6.)

<clickety>

The V700 looks like a nice rig. Nice assortment of accessories apparently
in the box, too -- charger, powerpack, mem, etc. Had good luck with it?
VGA videos, too. Mine only goes 320x240. My DSLR will do VGA, but for
the cost it should also get me drinks. :)

> goes into my shirt pockets OK when asked to. Samsung owned the Rollie
> brand and kept it in production for a while, and I like Rollie kit - and
> some of that that know-how seems to have rubbed off on Samsung now they
> make their own cameras.
>
> The best camera for any occasion is the one you happen to have with you,
> so portability is not to be sneezed at. I chose to put up with a

There ya go. It's not much good if it's at home and you're not.

> 'special' battery in trade-off for a proper (if miniscule) optical
> view-finder and more manual control than is offered by most modern
> compacts. 3x zoom range was all there was in my budget at the time - but
> I managed for decades with fixed lenses on compact cameras, so that feels
> like luxury to me.

I intentionally stayed away from cameras with much manual function -- I
wanted to stop gear-heading and just, literally, point and shoot with this
one. Of course I've already dicked around with using my off-camera flash
(I have three Vivitars, two of which have Wein Peanut optic slave
triggers) with it. I have to adjust the strobes to the camera, of
course...not the other way around. :)

> I had good experiences with film-based Fuji cameras so I can understand
> your loyalty.

The DSLR is my first. I didn't like their film. :)

> My 'big' camera outfit is Leica M stuff, and I'm still a film fan in
> principle - but I confess that the digicam is the one that takes the
> pictures, these days, "because it's there". The camera in my latest

I hear ya. I resisted for a long time. But while I was resisting, I was
taking precious few shots on film. Eventually...well, you know.

> mobile phone doesn't do a bad job either, considering. One of these
> days I'll get a film scanner to do justice to the Leica stuff; maybe
> even set up my B & W darkroom again, if I get space.

Sounds like fun either way. Enjoy!

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: * improve-usenet.org
Blinky: * blinkynet . net

Re: Ping WHISKERS

On 2008-01-18, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>
>> On 2008-01-17, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey, did I see you hanging out in here? :)
>>
>> Damn those sharky super-senses!
>
> :)
>
>>> I just got my first digital p-n-s camera. I shopped quite a bit and
>>> ended up with a Fuji A820. My needs were: something cheap and small to
>>> toss in the car and/or my gear bag for work, because I don't routinely
>>> carry my DSLR stuff with me, and I got tired of wishing a routinely had
>>> at least snapshot capabilities.
>>>
>>> My choice was based on liking my Fuji S7000 DSLR; reviews I'd read on
>>> the camera's sensor; a 4X optical zoom instead of the 3X most cameras in
>>> that price range offered; 2.5" screen; 8MP, 3296 x 2474; AA batteries
>>> rather than something proprietary.
>>>
>>> It's not exactly a shirt-pocket compact at 1.3 inches thick and 7.5
>>> ounces (with batteries), but it's okay for my hip pocket or a jacket.
>>>
>>> I like it lots.
>>
>> Good :))
>>
>> Mine's a Samsung V700; 7.1 Megapixels, 6? oz, and 1?" thick - and it
>
> I confess I didn't look at Samsung. But I did get a 24" 1920x1200 Samsung
> monitor last month. I'm a *fan* of Samsung, but......I don't think of
> them when I think "camera". Ditto Panasonic and Sony; didn't look at
> them. I come from the '60s (as do my film cameras<g>), when (of the
> brands still around!) there was Nikon, Minolta, Mamiya, Pentax, Contax,
> Ricoh, Leica, Hasselblad, etc. (My film cameras are a Pentax 35 and a
> Mamiya 6x6.)

I've sometimes yearned for a C330 outfit - but I think 'large format' will
get to me eventually. I like the contemplative approach, and the ability
to exploit 'movements'.

> <clickety>
>
> The V700 looks like a nice rig. Nice assortment of accessories apparently
> in the box, too -- charger, powerpack, mem, etc. Had good luck with it?
> VGA videos, too. Mine only goes 320x240. My DSLR will do VGA, but for
> the cost it should also get me drinks. :)

I haven't ventured into movies with it, but I've been pleased with the
stills results, printed up to A4 size. Despite it's small size, the
camera handles well - although I still think I'd rather have completely
manual control all the time rather than have to work out how to make the
electronics do what I want.

>> goes into my shirt pockets OK when asked to. Samsung owned the Rollie
>> brand and kept it in production for a while, and I like Rollie kit - and
>> some of that that know-how seems to have rubbed off on Samsung now they
>> make their own cameras.
>>
>> The best camera for any occasion is the one you happen to have with you,
>> so portability is not to be sneezed at. I chose to put up with a
>
> There ya go. It's not much good if it's at home and you're not.

Quite. I've always tried to have a compact of some sort with me at all
times; for a while I had a Minox 'spy camera' which was surprisingly
useful - and the digital compacts, with their tiny image sensors, have
some of the same qualities as the 'sub-miniature' film cameras.

>> 'special' battery in trade-off for a proper (if miniscule) optical
>> view-finder and more manual control than is offered by most modern
>> compacts. 3x zoom range was all there was in my budget at the time - but
>> I managed for decades with fixed lenses on compact cameras, so that feels
>> like luxury to me.
>
> I intentionally stayed away from cameras with much manual function -- I
> wanted to stop gear-heading and just, literally, point and shoot with this
> one. Of course I've already dicked around with using my off-camera flash
> (I have three Vivitars, two of which have Wein Peanut optic slave
> triggers) with it. I have to adjust the strobes to the camera, of
> course...not the other way around. :)

I'm a bit of a control freak; whenever I'm using a pure 'auto' or 'fixed
everything' camera I get terribly frustrated by the knowledge that I could
have got so much more from the subject with a different apperture or
shutter speed or both, or greater control over the focus, or something.
Even with my Leica M kit I have a hand-held spot meter in the bag and can
take several minutes just thinking about the exposure ... although I'm
perfectly capable of getting snapshots relying on the old 'ASA at f/16 in
the sun' etc rule of thumb.

I do sometimes go out with just a 'toy' such as my Practica SlimPix just
to force myself to let go and allow whatever happens to happen when I
click the button. Occasionally what comes out can be pleasing, even if it
isn't anything like what I expected! (Rather like doing water-colour in
the rain).

>> I had good experiences with film-based Fuji cameras so I can understand
>> your loyalty.
>
> The DSLR is my first. I didn't like their film. :)
>
>> My 'big' camera outfit is Leica M stuff, and I'm still a film fan in
>> principle - but I confess that the digicam is the one that takes the
>> pictures, these days, "because it's there". The camera in my latest
>
> I hear ya. I resisted for a long time. But while I was resisting, I was
> taking precious few shots on film. Eventually...well, you know.

Yup, that was me.

>> mobile phone doesn't do a bad job either, considering. One of these
>> days I'll get a film scanner to do justice to the Leica stuff; maybe
>> even set up my B & W darkroom again, if I get space.
>
> Sounds like fun either way. Enjoy!

That's the objective :))

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Ping WHISKERS

Whiskers wrote:

> On 2008-01-18, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-01-17, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:

>> I confess I didn't look at Samsung. But I did get a 24" 1920x1200
>> Samsung monitor last month. I'm a *fan* of Samsung, but......I don't
>> think of them when I think "camera". Ditto Panasonic and Sony; didn't
>> look at them. I come from the '60s (as do my film cameras<g>), when (of
>> the brands still around!) there was Nikon, Minolta, Mamiya, Pentax,
>> Contax, Ricoh, Leica, Hasselblad, etc. (My film cameras are a Pentax 35
>> and a Mamiya 6x6.)
>
> I've sometimes yearned for a C330 outfit - but I think 'large format' will
> get to me eventually. I like the contemplative approach, and the ability
> to exploit 'movements'.

Here's my ol' baby: * w w w .blinkynet . net /stuff/c3.jpg

I always wanted an RB67, of course.

>> <clickety>
>>
>> The V700 looks like a nice rig. Nice assortment of accessories
>> apparently in the box, too -- charger, powerpack, mem, etc. Had good
>> luck with it? VGA videos, too. Mine only goes 320x240. My DSLR will do
>> VGA, but for the cost it should also get me drinks. :)
>
> I haven't ventured into movies with it, but I've been pleased with the

They don't interest me. But when I get a new camera that does them, I
shoot a few seconds just because I paid for it. :)

> stills results, printed up to A4 size. Despite it's small size, the
> camera handles well - although I still think I'd rather have completely
> manual control all the time rather than have to work out how to make the
> electronics do what I want.

This automatic stuff can be complicated! ;)

>>> goes into my shirt pockets OK when asked to. Samsung owned the Rollie
>>> brand and kept it in production for a while, and I like Rollie kit -
>>> and some of that that know-how seems to have rubbed off on Samsung now
>>> they make their own cameras.
>>>
>>> The best camera for any occasion is the one you happen to have with
>>> you, so portability is not to be sneezed at. I chose to put up with a
>>
>> There ya go. It's not much good if it's at home and you're not.
>
> Quite. I've always tried to have a compact of some sort with me at all
> times; for a while I had a Minox 'spy camera' which was surprisingly
> useful - and the digital compacts, with their tiny image sensors, have
> some of the same qualities as the 'sub-miniature' film cameras.

Right. You can be executed for using them around the wrong kind of
paperwork! :)

>>> 'special' battery in trade-off for a proper (if miniscule) optical
>>> view-finder and more manual control than is offered by most modern
>>> compacts. 3x zoom range was all there was in my budget at the time -
>>> but I managed for decades with fixed lenses on compact cameras, so
>>> that feels like luxury to me.
>>
>> I intentionally stayed away from cameras with much manual function -- I
>> wanted to stop gear-heading and just, literally, point and shoot with
>> this one. Of course I've already dicked around with using my
>> off-camera flash (I have three Vivitars, two of which have Wein Peanut
>> optic slave triggers) with it. I have to adjust the strobes to the
>> camera, of course...not the other way around. :)
>
> I'm a bit of a control freak; whenever I'm using a pure 'auto' or 'fixed
> everything' camera I get terribly frustrated by the knowledge that I
> could have got so much more from the subject with a different apperture
> or shutter speed or both, or greater control over the focus, or
> something. Even with my Leica M kit I have a hand-held spot meter in the
> bag and can take several minutes just thinking about the exposure ...
> although I'm perfectly capable of getting snapshots relying on the old
> 'ASA at f/16 in the sun' etc rule of thumb.

I got that C3 specifically to slow myself down and *make* me think more
about what I was doing and what I wanted.

> I do sometimes go out with just a 'toy' such as my Practica SlimPix just
> to force myself to let go and allow whatever happens to happen when I
> click the button. Occasionally what comes out can be pleasing, even if
> it isn't anything like what I expected! (Rather like doing water-colour
> in the rain).

:) Today, I took the subway down to Chinatown, just to get outta the
house on a little local excursion. I packed the new Fuji. Everything on
auto. Crick, crick, crick. It was fun. And they came out well.

Compressed and *way* smallerized from 3295 x 2472, of course:

* w w w .blinkynet . net /odds/chinatown/KIPIHTMLExport/Chinatown/index.html

Didn't even crop those, except the very last one (to get a close-up of the
rail car coupler from the front). They're just as they came out of the
camera; all I did was have some of my software batch-resize them while I
played a couple games of Free Cell.

Now if I'd only thought to get a shot of all that shrimp...


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: * improve-usenet.org
Blinky: * blinkynet . net

Re: Ping WHISKERS

On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>
>> On 2008-01-18, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-01-17, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I confess I didn't look at Samsung. But I did get a 24" 1920x1200
>>> Samsung monitor last month. I'm a *fan* of Samsung, but......I don't
>>> think of them when I think "camera". Ditto Panasonic and Sony; didn't
>>> look at them. I come from the '60s (as do my film cameras<g>), when (of
>>> the brands still around!) there was Nikon, Minolta, Mamiya, Pentax,
>>> Contax, Ricoh, Leica, Hasselblad, etc. (My film cameras are a Pentax 35
>>> and a Mamiya 6x6.)
>>
>> I've sometimes yearned for a C330 outfit - but I think 'large format' will
>> get to me eventually. I like the contemplative approach, and the ability
>> to exploit 'movements'.
>
> Here's my ol' baby: * w w w .blinkynet . net /stuff/c3.jpg

<sigh> <yearn>

> I always wanted an RB67, of course.

I've considered a roll-film-sized 'field' camera with movements as a
reasonable tool, possibly with a range-finder and view-finder attachment
for hand-held use. Linhoff or Plaubel perhaps. But a 'Woodsman' or
similar kit for a 5x4 'plate' might be cheaper, and quite a lot of fun.
When I'm not broke ...

>>> <clickety>
>>>
>>> The V700 looks like a nice rig. Nice assortment of accessories
>>> apparently in the box, too -- charger, powerpack, mem, etc. Had good
>>> luck with it? VGA videos, too. Mine only goes 320x240. My DSLR will do
>>> VGA, but for the cost it should also get me drinks. :)
>>
>> I haven't ventured into movies with it, but I've been pleased with the
>
> They don't interest me. But when I get a new camera that does them, I
> shoot a few seconds just because I paid for it. :)
>
>> stills results, printed up to A4 size. Despite it's small size, the
>> camera handles well - although I still think I'd rather have completely
>> manual control all the time rather than have to work out how to make the
>> electronics do what I want.
>
> This automatic stuff can be complicated! ;)

I find it gets in the way horribly. I know that I want (say) f/2 for this
and the depth of field to go fuzzy at around 6' from the camera; so which
'scene' or 'mode' on this particular camera will give me something like
that? What exactly does 'night mode' /do/? At least I'm not burning film
while I find out!

>>>> goes into my shirt pockets OK when asked to. Samsung owned the Rollie
>>>> brand and kept it in production for a while, and I like Rollie kit -
>>>> and some of that that know-how seems to have rubbed off on Samsung now
>>>> they make their own cameras.
>>>>
>>>> The best camera for any occasion is the one you happen to have with
>>>> you, so portability is not to be sneezed at. I chose to put up with a
>>>
>>> There ya go. It's not much good if it's at home and you're not.
>>
>> Quite. I've always tried to have a compact of some sort with me at all
>> times; for a while I had a Minox 'spy camera' which was surprisingly
>> useful - and the digital compacts, with their tiny image sensors, have
>> some of the same qualities as the 'sub-miniature' film cameras.
>
> Right. You can be executed for using them around the wrong kind of
> paperwork! :)

There is that, of course. Goes for airports or certain buildings too, in
some parts of the world.

>>>> 'special' battery in trade-off for a proper (if miniscule) optical
>>>> view-finder and more manual control than is offered by most modern
>>>> compacts. 3x zoom range was all there was in my budget at the time -
>>>> but I managed for decades with fixed lenses on compact cameras, so
>>>> that feels like luxury to me.
>>>
>>> I intentionally stayed away from cameras with much manual function -- I
>>> wanted to stop gear-heading and just, literally, point and shoot with
>>> this one. Of course I've already dicked around with using my
>>> off-camera flash (I have three Vivitars, two of which have Wein Peanut
>>> optic slave triggers) with it. I have to adjust the strobes to the
>>> camera, of course...not the other way around. :)
>>
>> I'm a bit of a control freak; whenever I'm using a pure 'auto' or 'fixed
>> everything' camera I get terribly frustrated by the knowledge that I
>> could have got so much more from the subject with a different apperture
>> or shutter speed or both, or greater control over the focus, or
>> something. Even with my Leica M kit I have a hand-held spot meter in the
>> bag and can take several minutes just thinking about the exposure ...
>> although I'm perfectly capable of getting snapshots relying on the old
>> 'ASA at f/16 in the sun' etc rule of thumb.
>
> I got that C3 specifically to slow myself down and *make* me think more
> about what I was doing and what I wanted.

It will certainly do that for you!

>> I do sometimes go out with just a 'toy' such as my Practica SlimPix just
>> to force myself to let go and allow whatever happens to happen when I
>> click the button. Occasionally what comes out can be pleasing, even if
>> it isn't anything like what I expected! (Rather like doing water-colour
>> in the rain).
>
> :) Today, I took the subway down to Chinatown, just to get outta the
> house on a little local excursion. I packed the new Fuji. Everything on
> auto. Crick, crick, crick. It was fun. And they came out well.
>
> Compressed and *way* smallerized from 3295 x 2472, of course:
>
> * w w w .blinkynet . net /odds/chinatown/KIPIHTMLExport/Chinatown/index.html
>
> Didn't even crop those, except the very last one (to get a close-up of the
> rail car coupler from the front). They're just as they came out of the
> camera; all I did was have some of my software batch-resize them while I
> played a couple games of Free Cell.
>
> Now if I'd only thought to get a shot of all that shrimp...

Did you get any actual shrimp?

Looks like an interesting part of town - and the pictures aren't at all bad
either :)) (Folk in my part of the world would get a bit suspicious
about anyone taking snaps of the techy bits of the transport system).

If this is a ploy to get me to put up some of mine ... well I did have an
account at one of those 'sharing' places but I let it lapse; I really
should start using some of the web space I'm probably 'entitled' to.
Hmmm.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Ping WHISKERS

Whiskers wrote:

> On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-01-18, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-01-17, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> I confess I didn't look at Samsung. But I did get a 24" 1920x1200
>>>> Samsung monitor last month. I'm a *fan* of Samsung, but......I don't
>>>> think of them when I think "camera". Ditto Panasonic and Sony;
>>>> didn't look at them. I come from the '60s (as do my film
>>>> cameras<g>), when (of the brands still around!) there was Nikon,
>>>> Minolta, Mamiya, Pentax, Contax, Ricoh, Leica, Hasselblad, etc. (My
>>>> film cameras are a Pentax 35 and a Mamiya 6x6.)
>>>
>>> I've sometimes yearned for a C330 outfit - but I think 'large format'
>>> will get to me eventually. I like the contemplative approach, and the
>>> ability to exploit 'movements'.
>>
>> Here's my ol' baby: * w w w .blinkynet . net /stuff/c3.jpg
>
> <sigh> <yearn>
>
>> I always wanted an RB67, of course.
>
> I've considered a roll-film-sized 'field' camera with movements as a
> reasonable tool, possibly with a range-finder and view-finder attachment
> for hand-held use. Linhoff or Plaubel perhaps. But a 'Woodsman' or

When I mentioned brands from 40 years ago, when I first got interested in
photography, I almost mentined Linhof because it popped into my mind, but
then I thought it might be a foreign word in a p'n's group. :)

> similar kit for a 5x4 'plate' might be cheaper, and quite a lot of fun.
> When I'm not broke ...

I keep waiting for that condition. I keep buying stuff anyway. :)

5x4 reminds me of contact printing onto Kodalith, back in the day.
<clickety> I guess that's been discontinued.

>>>> <clickety>
>>>>
>>>> The V700 looks like a nice rig. Nice assortment of accessories
>>>> apparently in the box, too -- charger, powerpack, mem, etc. Had good
>>>> luck with it? VGA videos, too. Mine only goes 320x240. My DSLR will
>>>> do VGA, but for the cost it should also get me drinks. :)
>>>
>>> I haven't ventured into movies with it, but I've been pleased with the
>>
>> They don't interest me. But when I get a new camera that does them, I
>> shoot a few seconds just because I paid for it. :)
>>
>>> stills results, printed up to A4 size. Despite it's small size, the
>>> camera handles well - although I still think I'd rather have
>>> completely manual control all the time rather than have to work out
>>> how to make the electronics do what I want.
>>
>> This automatic stuff can be complicated! ;)
>
> I find it gets in the way horribly. I know that I want (say) f/2 for
> this and the depth of field to go fuzzy at around 6' from the camera; so
> which 'scene' or 'mode' on this particular camera will give me something
> like that? What exactly does 'night mode' /do/? At least I'm not
> burning film while I find out!

I'm with you on all that.

Hey, I can see why lenses wouldn't be as fast on these cameras as on more
costly ones -- but why are they so limited at the *small* aperature end of
the spectrum? This one seems to only go to f7-point-something. Come to
think of it, even my DSLR lens (non-interchangeable) only goes to f8. At
least when I was doing film, par for common stopped-down lenses was f16
and I think I have a 24mm with f32.

>>>> There ya go. It's not much good if it's at home and you're not.
>>>
>>> Quite. I've always tried to have a compact of some sort with me at
>>> all times; for a while I had a Minox 'spy camera' which was
>>> surprisingly useful - and the digital compacts, with their tiny image
>>> sensors, have some of the same qualities as the 'sub-miniature' film
>>> cameras.
>>
>> Right. You can be executed for using them around the wrong kind of
>> paperwork! :)
>
> There is that, of course. Goes for airports or certain buildings too,
> in some parts of the world.

In summer of 2002, less than two years after 9/11, my buddy and I were on
a road trip out east. One of our stops, since we were nearby, was the
first US nuclear powerplant, at Shpping Port, Pennsylvania. It's not like
they had tours or anything -- we just wanted to see it. We did, and took
photos from outside the fence. It wasn't until we were driving to our
next point of interest that we realized that it wouldn't have been a
stretch to have to do some explaining to this or that authority about
those photos, and in retrospect I *am* surpised that we weren't met by
Vehicles With Government Agency Names On Them. :)

>> I got that C3 specifically to slow myself down and *make* me think more
>> about what I was doing and what I wanted.
>
> It will certainly do that for you!

Did. The ground glass (and the reversed display) made me more
contemplative. :)

>>> I do sometimes go out with just a 'toy' such as my Practica SlimPix
>>> just to force myself to let go and allow whatever happens to happen
>>> when I click the button. Occasionally what comes out can be pleasing,
>>> even if it isn't anything like what I expected! (Rather like doing
>>> water-colour in the rain).
>>
>> :) Today, I took the subway down to Chinatown, just to get outta the
>> house on a little local excursion. I packed the new Fuji. Everything
>> on auto. Crick, crick, crick. It was fun. And they came out well.
>>
>> Compressed and *way* smallerized from 3295 x 2472, of course:
>>
>> * w w w .blinkynet . net /odds/chinatown/KIPIHTMLExport/Chinatown/index.html
>>
>> Didn't even crop those, except the very last one (to get a close-up of
>> the rail car coupler from the front). They're just as they came out of
>> the camera; all I did was have some of my software batch-resize them
>> while I played a couple games of Free Cell.
>>
>> Now if I'd only thought to get a shot of all that shrimp...
>
> Did you get any actual shrimp?

From the above: * tinyurl . com /ywrj4x

> Looks like an interesting part of town - and the pictures aren't at all
> bad either :)) (Folk in my part of the world would get a bit
> suspicious about anyone taking snaps of the techy bits of the transport
> system).

Sadly, I thought of that myself as I was going that. <sigh>

But I can't say I blame them, either.

I shot those two coupler images at the Chinatown stop while I was waiting
for my train. The front view is of the train I boarded. After I got on,
some guy in transit authority garb got on, too. I've only ridden the
Metro trains twice, and not seen that, so I wondered if he'd was keeping
me in view and had radioed for backup. :)

> If this is a ploy to get me to put up some of mine ... well I did have

Nah. I discovered in an installed program I'd never used that it had a
gallery feature, and since I wanted to share those photos with my buddy I
gave it a try. Not bad for a little quick-n-dirty show. Since I'd just
created that and uploaded it for him, I thought I'd stick it in here, too.

> an account at one of those 'sharing' places but I let it lapse; I really
> should start using some of the web space I'm probably 'entitled' to.
> Hmmm.

There ya go. One good thing about that is that I've found, being a dialup
user, that with some of them you have to wait for a bunch of unrelated
images (site stuff, teases for other photos and/or galleries, etc.) to
download. So mostly, when I see links to them I just don't bother.

Now that I've sussed how this program makes its galleries, I can make the
url less cumbersome, too, by removing a couple unneeded directories. :)


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: * improve-usenet.org
Blinky: * blinkynet . net

Re: Ping WHISKERS

On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>
>> On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-01-18, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2008-01-17, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:

[...]

>> I've considered a roll-film-sized 'field' camera with movements as a
>> reasonable tool, possibly with a range-finder and view-finder attachment
>> for hand-held use. Linhoff or Plaubel perhaps. But a 'Woodsman' or
>
> When I mentioned brands from 40 years ago, when I first got interested in
> photography, I almost mentined Linhof because it popped into my mind, but
> then I thought it might be a foreign word in a p'n's group. :)

Probably; but give it a viewfinder and a digiback and you could point and
shoot with it, digitally <G>

>> similar kit for a 5x4 'plate' might be cheaper, and quite a lot of fun.
>> When I'm not broke ...
>
> I keep waiting for that condition. I keep buying stuff anyway. :)
>
> 5x4 reminds me of contact printing onto Kodalith, back in the day.
> <clickety> I guess that's been discontinued.

Chemical photography stuff is getting narrowed down in variety as
computers sweep all before them. We're moving towards the stage when
'traditional' photography will be a 'fine art' (like engraving, etching,
drawing, and painting, have become) with 'digital' taking over virtually
all the 'commercial', 'record', and 'souvenir' aspects.

[...]

> Hey, I can see why lenses wouldn't be as fast on these cameras as on more
> costly ones -- but why are they so limited at the *small* aperature end of
> the spectrum? This one seems to only go to f7-point-something. Come to
> think of it, even my DSLR lens (non-interchangeable) only goes to f8.

Physics. With the very short focal lengths that go with most 'amateur'
digicams (to get sensible angles of view with the tiny image sensors),
anything much smaller than f/8 will result in the diffraction of the light
rays hitting the edge of the apperture overwhelming the un-diffracted rays
passing through the centre of the hole, thus degrading the image
unacceptably.

The curvature of the lens elements will also tend to be sharper at these
smaller focal lengths, which limits the maximum diameter you can get
without making the lenses very thick and heavy. That creates a physical
restraint to the maximum apperture possible.

> At
> least when I was doing film, par for common stopped-down lenses was f16
> and I think I have a 24mm with f32.

That would be unusually small at that focal length. I don't think I've
seen f/32 on anything shorter than 4" or 90mm (regardless of film size).
But longer lenses can go down to f/64 or even less without diffraction
getting in the way.

>>>>> There ya go. It's not much good if it's at home and you're not.
>>>>
>>>> Quite. I've always tried to have a compact of some sort with me at
>>>> all times; for a while I had a Minox 'spy camera' which was
>>>> surprisingly useful - and the digital compacts, with their tiny image
>>>> sensors, have some of the same qualities as the 'sub-miniature' film
>>>> cameras.
>>>
>>> Right. You can be executed for using them around the wrong kind of
>>> paperwork! :)
>>
>> There is that, of course. Goes for airports or certain buildings too,
>> in some parts of the world.
>
> In summer of 2002, less than two years after 9/11, my buddy and I were on
> a road trip out east. One of our stops, since we were nearby, was the
> first US nuclear powerplant, at Shpping Port, Pennsylvania. It's not like
> they had tours or anything -- we just wanted to see it. We did, and took
> photos from outside the fence. It wasn't until we were driving to our
> next point of interest that we realized that it wouldn't have been a
> stretch to have to do some explaining to this or that authority about
> those photos, and in retrospect I *am* surpised that we weren't met by
> Vehicles With Government Agency Names On Them. :)

They can probably follow you with a geiger counter from the ISS ;))

>>> I got that C3 specifically to slow myself down and *make* me think more
>>> about what I was doing and what I wanted.
>>
>> It will certainly do that for you!
>
> Did. The ground glass (and the reversed display) made me more
> contemplative. :)
>
>>>> I do sometimes go out with just a 'toy' such as my Practica SlimPix
>>>> just to force myself to let go and allow whatever happens to happen
>>>> when I click the button. Occasionally what comes out can be pleasing,
>>>> even if it isn't anything like what I expected! (Rather like doing
>>>> water-colour in the rain).
>>>
>>> :) Today, I took the subway down to Chinatown, just to get outta the
>>> house on a little local excursion. I packed the new Fuji. Everything
>>> on auto. Crick, crick, crick. It was fun. And they came out well.
>>>
>>> Compressed and *way* smallerized from 3295 x 2472, of course:
>>>
>>> * w w w .blinkynet . net /odds/chinatown/KIPIHTMLExport/Chinatown/index.html
>>>
>>> Didn't even crop those, except the very last one (to get a close-up of
>>> the rail car coupler from the front). They're just as they came out of
>>> the camera; all I did was have some of my software batch-resize them
>>> while I played a couple games of Free Cell.
>>>
>>> Now if I'd only thought to get a shot of all that shrimp...
>>
>> Did you get any actual shrimp?
>
> From the above: * tinyurl . com /ywrj4x

Sorry, I only looked at the pictures the first time around; I've gone back
for the captions since - and got my answer :))

>> Looks like an interesting part of town - and the pictures aren't at all
>> bad either :)) (Folk in my part of the world would get a bit
>> suspicious about anyone taking snaps of the techy bits of the transport
>> system).
>
> Sadly, I thought of that myself as I was going that. <sigh>
>
> But I can't say I blame them, either.

It's a sad sad world, isn't it?

> I shot those two coupler images at the Chinatown stop while I was waiting
> for my train. The front view is of the train I boarded. After I got on,
> some guy in transit authority garb got on, too. I've only ridden the
> Metro trains twice, and not seen that, so I wondered if he'd was keeping
> me in view and had radioed for backup. :)

You seem to have got away with it that time ...

>> If this is a ploy to get me to put up some of mine ... well I did have
>
> Nah. I discovered in an installed program I'd never used that it had a
> gallery feature, and since I wanted to share those photos with my buddy I
> gave it a try. Not bad for a little quick-n-dirty show. Since I'd just
> created that and uploaded it for him, I thought I'd stick it in here, too.
>
>> an account at one of those 'sharing' places but I let it lapse; I really
>> should start using some of the web space I'm probably 'entitled' to.
>> Hmmm.
>
> There ya go. One good thing about that is that I've found, being a dialup
> user, that with some of them you have to wait for a bunch of unrelated
> images (site stuff, teases for other photos and/or galleries, etc.) to
> download. So mostly, when I see links to them I just don't bother.

Using Opera, even on broadband I browse with images, scripts, Java, and
plugins, all disabled by default. I can then get only the images I'm
interested in, after the page has loaded. On dial-up that makes a big
difference to the time and expense of web browsing.

> Now that I've sussed how this program makes its galleries, I can make the
> url less cumbersome, too, by removing a couple unneeded directories. :)

I think various 'web page templates' and 'design tools' are provided for
my Linux distro. I'll investigate, eventually. Or I'll go to gopherspace
where content rules and all there is apart from content, is the means of
finding it (and no Google!). (Lynx can get into gopherspace, but most web
browsers can't. Gopher can, of course).

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Ping WHISKERS

Whiskers wrote:

> On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-01-18, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2008-01-17, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I've considered a roll-film-sized 'field' camera with movements as a
>>> reasonable tool, possibly with a range-finder and view-finder
>>> attachment for hand-held use. Linhoff or Plaubel perhaps. But a
>>> 'Woodsman' or
>>
>> When I mentioned brands from 40 years ago, when I first got interested
>> in photography, I almost mentined Linhof because it popped into my mind,
>> but then I thought it might be a foreign word in a p'n's group. :)
>
> Probably; but give it a viewfinder and a digiback and you could point and
> shoot with it, digitally <G>

Okay, but this stuff's going on your tab, not mine. :)

>>> similar kit for a 5x4 'plate' might be cheaper, and quite a lot of fun.
>>> When I'm not broke ...
>>
>> I keep waiting for that condition. I keep buying stuff anyway. :)
>>
>> 5x4 reminds me of contact printing onto Kodalith, back in the day.
>> <clickety> I guess that's been discontinued.
>
> Chemical photography stuff is getting narrowed down in variety as
> computers sweep all before them. We're moving towards the stage when
> 'traditional' photography will be a 'fine art' (like engraving, etching,
> drawing, and painting, have become) with 'digital' taking over virtually
> all the 'commercial', 'record', and 'souvenir' aspects.
>
> [...]

I'm on my way to becoming a fine artist. Cool!

>> Hey, I can see why lenses wouldn't be as fast on these cameras as on
>> more costly ones -- but why are they so limited at the *small* aperature
>> end of the spectrum? This one seems to only go to f7-point-something.
>> Come to think of it, even my DSLR lens (non-interchangeable) only goes
>> to f8.
>
> Physics. With the very short focal lengths that go with most 'amateur'
> digicams (to get sensible angles of view with the tiny image sensors),
> anything much smaller than f/8 will result in the diffraction of the light
> rays hitting the edge of the apperture overwhelming the un-diffracted rays
> passing through the centre of the hole, thus degrading the image
> unacceptably.

Ah! Diffraction at the blades. I didn't realize that was an issue. I'm
used to abberations toward the outside of the lens -- but this is kinda
the reverse because it gets worse nearer the center of the lens axis. And
that's why I never thought of it.

> The curvature of the lens elements will also tend to be sharper at these
> smaller focal lengths, which limits the maximum diameter you can get
> without making the lenses very thick and heavy. That creates a physical
> restraint to the maximum apperture possible.
>
>> At
>> least when I was doing film, par for common stopped-down lenses was f16
>> and I think I have a 24mm with f32.
>
> That would be unusually small at that focal length. I don't think I've
> seen f/32 on anything shorter than 4" or 90mm (regardless of film size).
> But longer lenses can go down to f/64 or even less without diffraction
> getting in the way.

Sorry. I just looked, and it's f22 on a 135mm Super-Takumar. I was
thinking it was on my 24mm S-T, but no, that's offers a routine f16.

>> In summer of 2002, less than two years after 9/11, my buddy and I were

Uh...less than *one* year after. I was apparently using shark years.

>> on a road trip out east. One of our stops, since we were nearby, was
>> the first US nuclear powerplant, at Shpping Port, Pennsylvania. It's
>> not like they had tours or anything -- we just wanted to see it. We
>> did, and took photos from outside the fence. It wasn't until we were
>> driving to our next point of interest that we realized that it wouldn't
>> have been a stretch to have to do some explaining to this or that
>> authority about those photos, and in retrospect I *am* surpised that we
>> weren't met by Vehicles With Government Agency Names On Them. :)
>
> They can probably follow you with a geiger counter from the ISS ;))

I do have a certain glow, but that's always been attributable to my
personality.

>> I shot those two coupler images at the Chinatown stop while I was
>> waiting for my train. The front view is of the train I boarded. After
>> I got on, some guy in transit authority garb got on, too. I've only
>> ridden the Metro trains twice, and not seen that, so I wondered if he'd
>> was keeping me in view and had radioed for backup. :)
>
> You seem to have got away with it that time ...

Good thing they didn't compare notes with the guys from the nuke plant.
:)

>> There ya go. One good thing about that is that I've found, being a
>> dialup user, that with some of them you have to wait for a bunch of
>> unrelated images (site stuff, teases for other photos and/or galleries,
>> etc.) to download. So mostly, when I see links to them I just don't
>> bother.
>
> Using Opera, even on broadband I browse with images, scripts, Java, and
> plugins, all disabled by default. I can then get only the images I'm
> interested in, after the page has loaded. On dial-up that makes a big
> difference to the time and expense of web browsing.

I'm not sure how I can view images on image-sharing sites with my images
disabled to save bandwidth.

>> Now that I've sussed how this program makes its galleries, I can make
>> the url less cumbersome, too, by removing a couple unneeded
>> directories.
>> :)
>
> I think various 'web page templates' and 'design tools' are provided for
> my Linux distro. I'll investigate, eventually. Or I'll go to
> gopherspace where content rules and all there is apart from content, is
> the means of finding it (and no Google!). (Lynx can get into
> gopherspace, but most web browsers can't. Gopher can, of course).

For the record, I did that little gallery (with only the slightest of
tweaks to the output) with the copy of KDE's digiKam that came with my
powerpack edition of Mandriva 2005. It's okay for something light; I
wouldn't use it for something important.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: * improve-usenet.org
Blinky: * blinkynet . net

Re: Ping WHISKERS

On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>
>> On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2008-01-18, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2008-01-17, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> I've considered a roll-film-sized 'field' camera with movements as a
>>>> reasonable tool, possibly with a range-finder and view-finder
>>>> attachment for hand-held use. Linhoff or Plaubel perhaps. But a
>>>> 'Woodsman' or
>>>
>>> When I mentioned brands from 40 years ago, when I first got interested
>>> in photography, I almost mentined Linhof because it popped into my mind,
>>> but then I thought it might be a foreign word in a p'n's group. :)
>>
>> Probably; but give it a viewfinder and a digiback and you could point and
>> shoot with it, digitally <G>
>
> Okay, but this stuff's going on your tab, not mine. :)

<Darn, I'm rumbled>

>>>> similar kit for a 5x4 'plate' might be cheaper, and quite a lot of fun.
>>>> When I'm not broke ...
>>>
>>> I keep waiting for that condition. I keep buying stuff anyway. :)
>>>
>>> 5x4 reminds me of contact printing onto Kodalith, back in the day.
>>> <clickety> I guess that's been discontinued.
>>
>> Chemical photography stuff is getting narrowed down in variety as
>> computers sweep all before them. We're moving towards the stage when
>> 'traditional' photography will be a 'fine art' (like engraving, etching,
>> drawing, and painting, have become) with 'digital' taking over virtually
>> all the 'commercial', 'record', and 'souvenir' aspects.
>>
>> [...]
>
> I'm on my way to becoming a fine artist. Cool!

The next step is the hat. Get a silly hat and you're well on your way.

>>> Hey, I can see why lenses wouldn't be as fast on these cameras as on
>>> more costly ones -- but why are they so limited at the *small* aperature
>>> end of the spectrum? This one seems to only go to f7-point-something.
>>> Come to think of it, even my DSLR lens (non-interchangeable) only goes
>>> to f8.
>>
>> Physics. With the very short focal lengths that go with most 'amateur'
>> digicams (to get sensible angles of view with the tiny image sensors),
>> anything much smaller than f/8 will result in the diffraction of the light
>> rays hitting the edge of the apperture overwhelming the un-diffracted rays
>> passing through the centre of the hole, thus degrading the image
>> unacceptably.
>
> Ah! Diffraction at the blades. I didn't realize that was an issue. I'm
> used to abberations toward the outside of the lens -- but this is kinda
> the reverse because it gets worse nearer the center of the lens axis. And
> that's why I never thought of it.

The Minox sub-miniature camera lens has a fixed apperture of f/3.5;
apparently the lens designers worked out that anything smaller was worse
and anything bigger was going to spoil the smallness of the camera. Depth
of field is so large at these image dimensions that there's little or no
point in trying to exploit the 'out of focus' effects that work well with
varying the apperture on 35mm and '120' film cameras - and can be a real
problem on 'large format'.

>> The curvature of the lens elements will also tend to be sharper at these
>> smaller focal lengths, which limits the maximum diameter you can get
>> without making the lenses very thick and heavy. That creates a physical
>> restraint to the maximum apperture possible.
>>
>>> At
>>> least when I was doing film, par for common stopped-down lenses was f16
>>> and I think I have a 24mm with f32.
>>
>> That would be unusually small at that focal length. I don't think I've
>> seen f/32 on anything shorter than 4" or 90mm (regardless of film size).
>> But longer lenses can go down to f/64 or even less without diffraction
>> getting in the way.
>
> Sorry. I just looked, and it's f22 on a 135mm Super-Takumar. I was
> thinking it was on my 24mm S-T, but no, that's offers a routine f16.
>
>>> In summer of 2002, less than two years after 9/11, my buddy and I were
>
> Uh...less than *one* year after. I was apparently using shark years.

It's all relative anyway.

>>> on a road trip out east. One of our stops, since we were nearby, was
>>> the first US nuclear powerplant, at Shpping Port, Pennsylvania. It's
>>> not like they had tours or anything -- we just wanted to see it. We
>>> did, and took photos from outside the fence. It wasn't until we were
>>> driving to our next point of interest that we realized that it wouldn't
>>> have been a stretch to have to do some explaining to this or that
>>> authority about those photos, and in retrospect I *am* surpised that we
>>> weren't met by Vehicles With Government Agency Names On Them. :)
>>
>> They can probably follow you with a geiger counter from the ISS ;))
>
> I do have a certain glow, but that's always been attributable to my
> personality.
>
>>> I shot those two coupler images at the Chinatown stop while I was
>>> waiting for my train. The front view is of the train I boarded. After
>>> I got on, some guy in transit authority garb got on, too. I've only
>>> ridden the Metro trains twice, and not seen that, so I wondered if he'd
>>> was keeping me in view and had radioed for backup. :)
>>
>> You seem to have got away with it that time ...
>
> Good thing they didn't compare notes with the guys from the nuke plant.
> :)

You got off the train too soon ...

>>> There ya go. One good thing about that is that I've found, being a
>>> dialup user, that with some of them you have to wait for a bunch of
>>> unrelated images (site stuff, teases for other photos and/or galleries,
>>> etc.) to download. So mostly, when I see links to them I just don't
>>> bother.
>>
>> Using Opera, even on broadband I browse with images, scripts, Java, and
>> plugins, all disabled by default. I can then get only the images I'm
>> interested in, after the page has loaded. On dial-up that makes a big
>> difference to the time and expense of web browsing.
>
> I'm not sure how I can view images on image-sharing sites with my images
> disabled to save bandwidth.

With Opera set to 'cached images only', the placeholders for images are
visible. If there's one I think might be worth a look, right-click on it
and 'reload image'; that image (and nothing else) is fetched. Or (as I
did on landing on your album page) shift-i fetches all the images at once.
It was that ability that sold me on Opera the first time I tried it, when
I was still on dial-up - I got the binary from a magazine CD. About 7
years ago that was, and 4 and a half versions of Opera and on a different
OS.

>>> Now that I've sussed how this program makes its galleries, I can make
>>> the url less cumbersome, too, by removing a couple unneeded
>>> directories.
>>> :)
>>
>> I think various 'web page templates' and 'design tools' are provided for
>> my Linux distro. I'll investigate, eventually. Or I'll go to
>> gopherspace where content rules and all there is apart from content, is
>> the means of finding it (and no Google!). (Lynx can get into
>> gopherspace, but most web browsers can't. Gopher can, of course).
>
> For the record, I did that little gallery (with only the slightest of
> tweaks to the output) with the copy of KDE's digiKam that came with my
> powerpack edition of Mandriva 2005. It's okay for something light; I
> wouldn't use it for something important.

I'm up to Mandriva 2007 and about to move everything to 2008. Mdv2008 us
worth the switch, if you can get hold of the DVD (I wouldn't recommend
trying to download the whole thing over dialup, even Linux distros are a
bit big for that these days).

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Ping WHISKERS

Whiskers wrote:

> On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>> Chemical photography stuff is getting narrowed down in variety as
>>> computers sweep all before them. We're moving towards the stage when
>>> 'traditional' photography will be a 'fine art' (like engraving,
>>> etching, drawing, and painting, have become) with 'digital' taking over
>>> virtually all the 'commercial', 'record', and 'souvenir' aspects.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> I'm on my way to becoming a fine artist. Cool!
>
> The next step is the hat. Get a silly hat and you're well on your way.

If my black beret doesn't establish my fine artisthood, nothing will. :)

>>>> I shot those two coupler images at the Chinatown stop while I was
>>>> waiting for my train. The front view is of the train I boarded.
>>>> After I got on, some guy in transit authority garb got on, too. I've
>>>> only ridden the Metro trains twice, and not seen that, so I wondered
>>>> if he'd was keeping me in view and had radioed for backup. :)
>>>
>>> You seem to have got away with it that time ...
>>
>> Good thing they didn't compare notes with the guys from the nuke plant.
>> :)
>
> You got off the train too soon ...

I think you misspelled "just in time". :)

>>>> There ya go. One good thing about that is that I've found, being a
>>>> dialup user, that with some of them you have to wait for a bunch of
>>>> unrelated images (site stuff, teases for other photos and/or
>>>> galleries, etc.) to download. So mostly, when I see links to them I
>>>> just don't bother.
>>>
>>> Using Opera, even on broadband I browse with images, scripts, Java,
>>> and plugins, all disabled by default. I can then get only the images
>>> I'm interested in, after the page has loaded. On dial-up that makes a
>>> big difference to the time and expense of web browsing.
>>
>> I'm not sure how I can view images on image-sharing sites with my
>> images disabled to save bandwidth.
>
> With Opera set to 'cached images only', the placeholders for images are
> visible. If there's one I think might be worth a look, right-click on
> it and 'reload image'; that image (and nothing else) is fetched. Or (as

Gotcha.

> I did on landing on your album page) shift-i fetches all the images at

So even with the images blocked, you didn't read the text? ;)

> once. It was that ability that sold me on Opera the first time I tried
> it, when I was still on dial-up - I got the binary from a magazine CD.
> About 7 years ago that was, and 4 and a half versions of Opera and on a
> different OS.

I moved to Opera at...I think it was 5.02 or so. Of course, I switched to
FF after a few years.

>> For the record, I did that little gallery (with only the slightest of
>> tweaks to the output) with the copy of KDE's digiKam that came with my
>> powerpack edition of Mandriva 2005. It's okay for something light; I
>> wouldn't use it for something important.
>
> I'm up to Mandriva 2007 and about to move everything to 2008. Mdv2008
> us worth the switch, if you can get hold of the DVD (I wouldn't
> recommend trying to download the whole thing over dialup, even Linux
> distros are a bit big for that these days).

Uh...yeah, they are. :)

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: * improve-usenet.org
Blinky: * blinkynet . net

Re: Ping WHISKERS

On 2008-01-20, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>
>> On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-01-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>> Chemical photography stuff is getting narrowed down in variety as
>>>> computers sweep all before them. We're moving towards the stage when
>>>> 'traditional' photography will be a 'fine art' (like engraving,
>>>> etching, drawing, and painting, have become) with 'digital' taking over
>>>> virtually all the 'commercial', 'record', and 'souvenir' aspects.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I'm on my way to becoming a fine artist. Cool!
>>
>> The next step is the hat. Get a silly hat and you're well on your way.
>
> If my black beret doesn't establish my fine artisthood, nothing will. :)

You're definitely on the right track.

>>>>> I shot those two coupler images at the Chinatown stop while I was
>>>>> waiting for my train. The front view is of the train I boarded.
>>>>> After I got on, some guy in transit authority garb got on, too. I've
>>>>> only ridden the Metro trains twice, and not seen that, so I wondered
>>>>> if he'd was keeping me in view and had radioed for backup. :)
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have got away with it that time ...
>>>
>>> Good thing they didn't compare notes with the guys from the nuke plant.
>>> :)
>>
>> You got off the train too soon ...
>
> I think you misspelled "just in time". :)

That's one interpretation ...

>>>>> There ya go. One good thing about that is that I've found, being a
>>>>> dialup user, that with some of them you have to wait for a bunch of
>>>>> unrelated images (site stuff, teases for other photos and/or
>>>>> galleries, etc.) to download. So mostly, when I see links to them I
>>>>> just don't bother.
>>>>
>>>> Using Opera, even on broadband I browse with images, scripts, Java,
>>>> and plugins, all disabled by default. I can then get only the images
>>>> I'm interested in, after the page has loaded. On dial-up that makes a
>>>> big difference to the time and expense of web browsing.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how I can view images on image-sharing sites with my
>>> images disabled to save bandwidth.
>>
>> With Opera set to 'cached images only', the placeholders for images are
>> visible. If there's one I think might be worth a look, right-click on
>> it and 'reload image'; that image (and nothing else) is fetched. Or (as
>
> Gotcha.
>
>> I did on landing on your album page) shift-i fetches all the images at
>
> So even with the images blocked, you didn't read the text? ;)

No; as soon as I got the first page I did the 'duh, I'm here for pictures'
thing and hit the I to get them

>> once. It was that ability that sold me on Opera the first time I tried
>> it, when I was still on dial-up - I got the binary from a magazine CD.
>> About 7 years ago that was, and 4 and a half versions of Opera and on a
>> different OS.
>
> I moved to Opera at...I think it was 5.02 or so. Of course, I switched to
> FF after a few years.

Ah well, it takes all sorts.

>>> For the record, I did that little gallery (with only the slightest of
>>> tweaks to the output) with the copy of KDE's digiKam that came with my
>>> powerpack edition of Mandriva 2005. It's okay for something light; I
>>> wouldn't use it for something important.
>>
>> I'm up to Mandriva 2007 and about to move everything to 2008. Mdv2008
>> us worth the switch, if you can get hold of the DVD (I wouldn't
>> recommend trying to download the whole thing over dialup, even Linux
>> distros are a bit big for that these days).
>
> Uh...yeah, they are. :)

Snail-mail still works at high bandwidth, though :))

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Ping WHISKERS

Whiskers wrote:

>>>> For the record, I did that little gallery (with only the slightest of
>>>> tweaks to the output) with the copy of KDE's digiKam that came with my
>>>> powerpack edition of Mandriva 2005. It's okay for something light; I
>>>> wouldn't use it for something important.
>>>
>>> I'm up to Mandriva 2007 and about to move everything to 2008. Mdv2008
>>> us worth the switch, if you can get hold of the DVD (I wouldn't
>>> recommend trying to download the whole thing over dialup, even Linux
>>> distros are a bit big for that these days).
>>
>> Uh...yeah, they are. :)
>
> Snail-mail still works at high bandwidth, though :))

Yeah. I buy from Mandriva or Cheap Bytes.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: * improve-usenet.org
Blinky: * blinkynet . net

Re: Ping WHISKERS

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Whiskers wrote:

>> Physics. With the very short focal lengths that go with most 'amateur'
>> digicams (to get sensible angles of view with the tiny image sensors),
>> anything much smaller than f/8 will result in the diffraction of the
>> light rays hitting the edge of the apperture overwhelming the
>> un-diffracted rays passing through the centre of the hole, thus
>> degrading the image unacceptably.
>
> Ah! Diffraction at the blades. I didn't realize that was an issue. I'm
> used to abberations toward the outside of the lens -- but this is kinda
> the reverse because it gets worse nearer the center of the lens axis. And
> that's why I never thought of it.

And what did I just run across in r.p.digital?

<q>

You /can/ get the depth of field, but at apertures of f/16 or so and
smaller, diffraction softening comes into play. Just makes the image not
quite as sharp. I'm no expert, just what I've read.

</q>

I love the Net. :)


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: * improve-usenet.org
Blinky: * blinkynet . net

Re: Ping WHISKERS

On 2008-01-21, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> Whiskers wrote:
>
>>> Physics. With the very short focal lengths that go with most 'amateur'
>>> digicams (to get sensible angles of view with the tiny image sensors),
>>> anything much smaller than f/8 will result in the diffraction of the
>>> light rays hitting the edge of the apperture overwhelming the
>>> un-diffracted rays passing through the centre of the hole, thus
>>> degrading the image unacceptably.
>>
>> Ah! Diffraction at the blades. I didn't realize that was an issue. I'm
>> used to abberations toward the outside of the lens -- but this is kinda
>> the reverse because it gets worse nearer the center of the lens axis. And
>> that's why I never thought of it.
>
> And what did I just run across in r.p.digital?
>
> <q>
>
> You /can/ get the depth of field, but at apertures of f/16 or so and
> smaller, diffraction softening comes into play. Just makes the image not
> quite as sharp. I'm no expert, just what I've read.
>
> </q>
>
> I love the Net. :)

So much quicker than going to the library and finding a book. But there
are books about 'depth of field' and lens abberations and so on, and why
Leica lenses are so much better than Zeiss (or not, according to taste)
and so on.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~