Possible new feature for next Photoshop

On 10/18/2011 3:49 PM, Pete A wrote:
snip

For business uses you may very well be right, depending upon the
application. However, for computers that are used solely inside the
inner firewall, there should be little security worry. However, in the
context of this discussion, some software need not be upgraded if it
is filling the need.

I hear what you are saying and I agree with it for home use on one or
two computers. With more computers it becomes a royal PIA when malware
spreads to the whole lot.


Yup! But it's more than a PIA intrusion can be a business disaster.


Many OSs and/or applications are still vulnerable to GIF, Flash, and PDF
exploits let alone Cookie and Java exploits. So yes, if your machines
are behind a firewall and do not run e-mail and Usenet clients nor a Web
browser then you are much safer than using the latest fully patched and
updated system; in that case the internet client applications should be
run on a machine isolated from the others by a separate firewall. I'm
only saying this because so many companies and organisations have been
hacked this year - they thought their systems were reasonably secure. I
totally fail to comprehend how Sony, a corporation not short of money,
has leaked the personal details of so many users on more than one
occasion.

Although we may never know the truth, I have heard that many such
breaches are caused by dissatisfied/corrupt employees, or contractors
who have left a back door open.



As to government systems being hacked, my mind boggles.

It doesn't mine. With many local governmental entities, the decision is
made based upon political considerations.





Let's not forget the ultimate in stupidity: utility companies having
their hackable industrial controllers connected directly to the
Internet. I just hope none of them control nuclear power stations.
Nuclear power is safe, software developers are not!


Scary, isn't it.

--
Peter

"Pete A" wrote in message
news:2011101819031284095-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...

For computer security, upgrades are mandatory.

Compatibility with the rest of the ecosystem is effectively mandatory as
well.

There is little choice when Microsoft uses its OS monopoly and deep pockets
to keep big corporations on board and the default PC purchase comes with
Microsoft OS.

The phrase "herded like sheep" springs to mind.

I would like government to look into the whole area of open standards and
start applying pressure.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

"Pete A" wrote in message
news:2011101820491870345-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...

I hear what you are saying and I agree with it for home use on one or two
computers. With more computers it becomes a royal PIA when malware spreads
to the whole lot.

Many OSs and/or applications are still vulnerable to GIF, Flash, and PDF
exploits let alone Cookie and Java exploits. So yes, if your machines are
behind a firewall and do not run e-mail and Usenet clients nor a Web
browser then you are much safer than using the latest fully patched and
updated system; in that case the internet client applications should be
run on a machine isolated from the others by a separate firewall. [...]

Let's not forget the ultimate in stupidity: utility companies having their
hackable industrial controllers connected directly to the Internet. I just
hope none of them control nuclear power stations. Nuclear power is safe,
software developers are not!

The MS firewall is completely functional but most of its capabilities aren't
exposed via a GUI, including outbound protection. MS deemed two way firewall
protection "wasn't necessary".

I've written on two way permission based circles of protection before (which
can reach down to the bit level and scale across the whole internet) and
this gets pretty boring after a while. Google+ is actually a partial
implementation of such a scheme at the application level. It's likely the
security services are studying it intently to see how it works in practice
and how it can be embedded at the protocol level with minimal disruption.

The rolling out of smart meters in the UK was halted not because of cost or
user reasons but the fact the government **** itself silly that a teenage
hacker in a basement flat in Nairobi could switch off the UK.

The economics of control, cost, fair wages, national security, foreign
policy, economic development, and so forth isn't far removed from this
discussion.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:54:29 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 10/12/2011 8:11 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:45:52 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:27:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
"Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
photo is difficult to do.

There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.

A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
type of image has become a cliche.

My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.

It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg



Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
pendulum would have worked better.

Sure, but I don't have a moving pendulum around the house to
photograph.

I was very close to going to a pet store and buying a Siamese Fighting
Fish in a small round bowl to see if I could photograph that with a
blur of movement. Didn't do it, though.

However, one of the other entries was a straight-down shot of a koi
pond. It was good, but not great.



As you pointed out: deliberate motion blur is not easy. My own suspicion
is that is why most CC judges like frozen objects. My bird images with
motion blur in the wings usually receive a comment that the wings are
blurry. Yet to me blurred wings can be a much nicer image.

You want motion blur?

I got motion blur.

See first http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2254.jpg

and then http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2256.jpg

Great subject, but you wouldn't have fared any better than I did. The
judges confused most of us by wanting more blur in some photos and
more sharpness in other photos. What they wanted was an image where
part of the subject is sharp and part is blurred.

The photos they graded high were images of something like a bicycle
with the rider very sharp but the spokes blurred. Some of the "zoom
blur" shots fared well, but they were shots where the blur was created
in-camera and not in Photoshop.

How about this one then - from 50 years ago.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Ard...Jan%201961.jpg


You did it nicely. Try a crop at the top to get rid of the white and
about 1/3 on the left, you will get a long lean look. The car will
appear to be even faster.

I posted it just as it came out of the camera.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

I think I have a good motion blur photo:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/zlinsmoke.jpg


--
m-m
Photo Gallery:
http://www.mhmyers.com

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:38:42 -0400, M-M wrote:

I think I have a good motion blur photo:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/zlinsmoke.jpg

That was good for 1/100 sec. My initial reaction was that it must have
been slower than that.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

nospam wrote:

MS have moved to a two year product cycle for similar reasons when peoples
natural buying cycle is five years. (It's not a coincidence that business
has settled around five years because that's the psychological sweetspot but
the mass consumer is more easily manipulated.)

5 years is ridiculously long in this industry. typical product cycles
are 1-2 years, for both hardware and software. people upgrade when they
need the new features.

I see. When was XP introduced and when will XP support run
out?

XP is an exceptional case -- it's been kept in support much longer than
its predecessors.

At least it shows that even Microsoft can listen to customer pressure,
if there's enough of it.

nospam writes:

In article 2011101413593879852-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Only if you use the work around with DNG Converter, and even then you
might be working with limitations,

it's not a workaround. it's a fully supported method.

It is a work around for those who have new cameras which don't have RAW
support in the version of ACR they own and they choose, for whatever
reason, not to upgrade.

it's not a work around. if someone gets a new camera they can get a
newer version of camera raw and use dng converter to batch convert all
of them to dng and keep using their existing old version of photoshop.

Changing your workflow, adding another step and another program, and
another file type (and then you have to decide which of the raw and the
DNG to keep) is smack dead center in the middle of "workaround"
territory.

it works fine and is fully supported. it's also totally free.

It's a *GOOD* workaround.

nospam writes:

In article 2011101416283050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

You will be working with the last installable version of ACR you were
able to install with the version of PS you own, and only the DNG
Converter 6.5 will work for you to make those new RAW files accessible
to your legacy edition of ACR & Photoshop.

nope. once it's converted dng, you've already benefited from the latest
version of camera raw.

Aha! Here's the big-deal difference.

I'm pretty sure this isn't true.

For example, improvements in ACR to highlight recovery, or CA
correction, or noise reduction, cannot have been applied in the
RAW-to-DNG conversion, because they require user input to tell them what
to do, which is not there at that point in the workflow.

On 19/10/2011 20:51, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wolfgang writes:

wrote:

MS have moved to a two year product cycle for similar reasons when peoples
natural buying cycle is five years. (It's not a coincidence that business
has settled around five years because that's the psychological sweetspot but
the mass consumer is more easily manipulated.)

5 years is ridiculously long in this industry. typical product cycles
are 1-2 years, for both hardware and software. people upgrade when they
need the new features.

I see. When was XP introduced and when will XP support run
out?

XP is an exceptional case -- it's been kept in support much longer than
its predecessors.

No. XP was an unusually good vintage and there are still corporates
running it even today. Vista was almost still-born and no amount of PR
fluff and infinite budget advertising hype could resurrect it.

At least it shows that even Microsoft can listen to customer pressure,
if there's enough of it.

Only when it is practically the entire corporate world - even then they
tried several times to retire it prematurely with extreme prejudice.

And they inflicted a bug ridden Office 2007 on the world to show that
they really don't care about their customers for good measure.

Win7 looks like it might be another decent vintage. They do happen
occasionally but more by good luck than good judgement.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown