Calumet files Chapter 7

On 2014-04-05 03:50:01 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 19:42:29 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-04-05 01:52:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:39:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:


...but why do we have to revisit this again and again when the issue
has been beaten to death several times?

Because there's no talk of photography. Here, I'll get the ball
rolling with some recent shots.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Babe-R...-02-051-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-121-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-122-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-123-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...3-16-12-XL.jpg

Nice

stuff.

How do you like your D300?

It's fine. The continuous mode shoots more fps than the D60, and that
does help. Still, I don't go crazy with multiple shots. I average
maybe three frames for a slide into home. Old film habits of
conserving frames die hard.

For sports shots, I use center weight, Single Area, and CL. And, RAW
of course, and Manual (usually) and sometimes Speed but not that much.
I haven't set up any Custom Shooting settings.

My limitation is still glass. I can't get wide open enough to blur
those backgrounds.

If I were you I would invest in an AF-S VR Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G.
At $586.95 it is a sharp, and good performing value, one of the best
values to be found in Nikkor lower priced lenses. It will give a tad
more reach than your 55-200mm and is sharper. All of my air show
in-flight shots such as this https://db.tt/B1Q9fEoI and most of my
motor sport shots are shot with this 70-300mm

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...om_Nikkor.html


For car shows i use the Nikkor 18-200mm, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, and
the 35mm/

If you are looking for a budget minded faster lens just go with having
the Nikkor AF-S f/1.8G DX at $196.95 in your pocket. It is good enough,
compact fast, and sharp. it makes a useful *normal* APS-C lens for
*Street* work. mine is in my bag at all times. It will give all the
bokeh you desire.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606792-GREY/Nikon_2183_AF_S_Nikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html

For

the baseball shots, I'm restricted to shooting "through the
diamonds"...through the diamond-shaped openings in the chain link
fence. That makes it hard to track action because part of that fence
ends up graying out an area.

While the fence is a problem in traversing the field, I rely mostly on
anticipating where the action will be. If there's a runner on third,
I'm framing and focusing on home plate before the pitch. I'm always
ready for one base ahead of where the runner is. What I miss is
infield action like a pop-up fly. I can't get the camera through the
diamond quickly enough.

One grandson is the catcher, so he's the subject of a lot of shots:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Babe-R...-13-136-XL.jpg
(That

wasn't my grandson in the catcher shot above. That was one of
our players sliding into home)

The other grandson is the first baseman, and you can see him in the
distance. Haven't got a good shot of him at first this year, but
here's one of him at bat trying to avoid a bad pitch:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Babe-R...3-25-33-XL.jpg


With

a batter, I like to get the ball in the frame and press the
shutter when the batter's forward shoulder drops or he starts to lean
forward. That tells me that one of my three shots has a good chance
of getting the ball in the frame. I don't even look at the pitcher or
try to see the ball.

Since the light changes quickly with late afternoon games, the ability
to change the ISO with a top button is an advantage. The D300
produces less grain at higher ISO than the D60, but neither is a good
high ISO camera.

For action shooting where there are rapid light/shade changes auto ISO
can be useful, I cap mine out at ISO 1600, (you know my sentiments
regarding noise) most are captured at ISO 200-400.

I do not care for the multi-focus point settings, and stay with single
area. When I tried the multi-focus point settings, I found too many
images where the wrong part of the player was in focus and was trying
to salvage bad shots. With single area, it's either sharp or not
sharp.

I have found the 3D-tracking useful at air shows and motor sport events.

The baseball and barrel racing shots were all processed solely in LR.
I shoot so many images in this type of situation that LR works OK. I
try for images of all the team members, not just my two. But, I
think I do a better job of post in CS. The barrel race arena was
covered, so the lighting was very poor. No flash was used, of course.

I changed the Subject to take us out of the silliness.

Finally!


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 22:34:45 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

When I bought my iPad, no one at the Apple store tried to tell me
that an $89 tablet would be a better buy for my needs. I would not
expect them to, and I would not want them to.

That's only because the Apple Store is not a reseller of tablets,

Oh, then, your defense of nospam's contention is that a store will
only tell you need something less expensive because they don't think
you need the expensive item *if* they also carry less expensive items?

why would a store tell you you need something they don't sell? then you
will go buy somewhere else.

Because the store manager is looking for along term relationship?

not many of them do that.

While I was still in college I was interviewed for a sales position. The
interviewer asked me to sell him a pencil. I answered "not if you don't
need one.
I was offered the job, on the spot.

a completely meaningless anecdote.

Not to me it isn't.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
You are so far off track here that there's no possibility at all
of getting you to understand. Perceived needs and perceived
values have been established terms almost forever. Well,
"forever" in the history of studying human behavior. I was
reading case studies on this when I getting my MBA from
Northwestern University.

Sandman:
I am not claiming the term doesn't exist, I am correctly pointing
out that "perceived need" has nothing to do with "want".

I'm going to snip the rest of your reply because I see no reason for
a point-by-point reply to a series of bogus rebuttals.

I'm going to snip the rest of your reply since you don't have the integrity
to respond to logical arguments.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , PeterN wrote:

Eric Stevens:
I would address the point in only a slightly different way.

It could be any one of these:

1. Forgotten 2. Overlooked 3. Deliberately ignored. 4. Missed.

In any case, If a subject is addressed, and an aspect of that
subject is not included, that aspect can be said to be
"ignored". As the list indicates, that does not require that the
aspect has been deliberately ignored.

Sandman:
ignore verb refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard
intentionally

Oh! I get it. As in ignore propositions that you don't agree with.
understood/

Sure, why not? One can certainly intentionally disregard a proposition that
one does not agree with.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Because... it is your position that there are none? I just want to
make this perfectly clear that Eric Stevens want me to
substantiate the existence of online sales help because it is YOUR
counter-claim that no such service exists anywhere?

Is this correct? I mean, there would be no need for me to
substantiate this if you don't actually think none exists, so I
just want to be sure that your position is that none exists and it
is my job to susbstantiate its existence (which I'm more than
happy to do, of course).

I am merely giving you advice as to the best way to support your
argument, by falsifying the opposing argument.

As I said - I am more than willing to support my position. I just want to
make certain there is a *reason* for me to support my position. One such
reason would be that you explicitly say that you claim my position is in
error and thus in need of support.

If you agree with me, why would you ask for support, your request for
support implies you disagree with me, but I need you to explicitly tell me
that no online sales help exists and that you need me to support this for
you.

Whether or not you choose to do it is up to you. Of course you may not be
able to falsify Tony's argument.

You see - Tony made a claim that there is no sales help available online.
I've yet to actually disagree with that (but for the record, I do), and if
he got the impression that I disagree, he has yet to ask me to support that
disagreement. The first one to bring up the matter of support is you, Eric,
so I just want to make it perfectly clear that you agree 100% with Tony's
claim:

"in *all* purchases online, there is no sales help available."

Note the emphasize "all" and the explicit "no". So, let me know, Eric - do
you agree with this claim or not? Do you need support for an opposing
argument?

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Taking that apart:

1. "Ignoring something is an active action, not stating something
isn't."

It depends upon whether or not the speaker knows of the 'something'.
If the speaker knows, not stating the something is a result of a
deliberate decision by the speaker - to not state.

Exactly - which is why I asked Tony to substantiate this supposed knowledge
of nospam.

You may note, however, that the claim is this:

"in *all* purchases online, there is no sales help available."

And Tony is claiming that nospam is ignoring this supposed "fact". So the
assumption is that nospam is aware of, and agree with, that there is no
online sales help available.

At the time of the claim, and as far as I know, nospam had yet to give any
information about his knowledge, or opinion on the matter. As it turns out,
he has since done that, and his reply to this was:

nospam
04/01/2014

"false. some online sellers have a *lot* of sales help on
their site"

So since the original claim it is clear that nospam did *not* ignore this,
since he is of the opinion that the claim being made is incorrect.

So, how could nospam be deliberately ignoring something he doesn't even
agree exists?

And again, for the record, I agree that the supposed fact that Tony is
claiming isn't in fact even true, and thus not even something that CAN be
ignored. I.e. Tony could just as easily have said "You're ignoring the fact
that elephants can fly".

Hope that helps, Eric! And have a great day!

(Tonight I'll be going to Arlanda and then to USA)



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Only to "use with" Photoshop:

Tony Cooper 03/15/2014 03:13:30 PM


"they can approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for Photoshop.
The plugins on that page are evidently plugins that Adobe has
approved for use with Photoshop."

Only - you have never been able to provide any support for the
approval process from Adobe for plugins to be "used with"
Photoshop.

See https://www.adobeexchange.com/producer

Sorry, that's not a link to Adobe's supposed approval process for plugins
to be "used with Photoshop".

Sandman:
You pointed to a process wherein Adobe approves to include the
plug-in on their market place (titled "Photoshop Plug-ins" while
none are authored by Adobe), but that failed to provide support
for the claim that they approve the plugins "for use with
Photoshop".

I think the process begins here http://www.adobe.com/misc/terms.html
and the information you are after may be downstream of section 9.5

No, sorry, that's the Adobe's Term of Use for end users and not related to
plug-in development at all.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper 03/15/2014 03:13:30 PM


"they can approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for
Photoshop. The plugins on that page are evidently plugins that
Adobe has approved for use with Photoshop."

nospam:
it doesn't.

all you need to do is download the photoshop sdk, write whatever
plug-in you want and offer it for sale. adobe doesn't even have to
know about it.

I don't know why you keep repeating this point. No one is
contesting it. We all know that anyone can write a plug-in for
Photoshop or LR and make that plug-in available to anyone without
Adobe's knowledge or consent.

What is at question is only what you should call it.

According to whom?

And where is the approval process "for use with Photoshop", Tony?

And regarding the name of the software, maybe we can go on what others have
called their plug-ins?

http://css3ps.com - "Photoshop plugin"
http://www.cutandslice.me - "Photoshop plugin"
http://www.divine-project.com - "Photoshop Plugin"
http://subtlepatterns.com - "Photoshop plugin"
http://webzap.uiparade.com - "PS plugin"
http://pnghat.madebysource.com - "Photoshop plugin"
http://skeuomorphism.it - "Photoshop plugin"
http://www.autofx.com/ - "Adobe Photoshop plug-ins"

All made by Adobe? Or Approved by Adobe? According to what approval
process? But no, they can't be approved by Adobe, they need to have all
been made by Adobe:

Tony Cooper
post processing
03/17/2014

"Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Tony Cooper:
But, no, I don't think your error was
"unforgiving"[sic]. Nor is it unforgivable. (Funny how
"Ironic" comes and bites you in the ass.)

Sandman:
How so? I am not posting spelling and grammar flames,
and I am fully aware that I make such mistakes,

Eric Stevens:
You could have fooled me. :-)

Sandman:
By what posts where I posted grammar and spelling flames, Eric?

There is a mistake: your claim that you are "fully aware that I make
such mistakes". :-)

How is that a mistake? In this very thread I made several and been very
upfront about them, Eric.

Sandman
03/31/2014

"What was that you said about "juvenile style", Andreas? As I
said, I make errors and I admit to errors. I have no pride
invested in my spelling or grammar, so I can freely admit to
making errors, like I did here."


Or a multitude of other occurances. Here you're correcting me when I
misused a word:

Sandman
12/07/2013

"Agreed, my mistake."

See how I used the word "fired" and you suggested that the word "laid off"
was more appropriate? If I were Tony, I would have argued for weeks that I
coulnd't possibly have used the wrong word! Words bend to my will!

But no, I accepted the correction, agreed with it and admitted to the
mistake.

Or other occasions where I've admitted to using the wrong word or phrase:

Sandman
08/02/2013 fonts

"Ooops, I meant "textbook example". My mistake. This was
a mistake I made by in my head translating the swedish
expression "skolboksexempel" which literally becomes "school
book example", but the real translation is "textbook example".
Sorry about that."

Or even:

Sandman
06/28/2013 fonts

"Oh? That may very well be! I freely admit not to know
the exact origin of "begs the question", and apologize
for any confusion."

I'm sure I can find more, if you're interested

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

PeterN:
Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

Sandman:
You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my
guest. I am happy to be corrected when I make mistakes. Be
sure to point to the post of my inappropiate usage and
substantiation for how and why it was inappropriate.

Eric Stevens:
Isn't that what the present argument is about?

Sandman:
No, not that I'm aware of. Tony incorrectly thought I had used the
word "onslaught" inappropriately, but failed to show how, and I
have since substantiated that I was using it correctly - which is
when he quietly left the thread to lick his wounds.

You may have convinced yourself but you didn't convince me.

Well, whether or not I convince anyone isn't all that relevant. I've
substantiated my position fully and completely, while no opposing position
has submitted any substantiation.

Here is my substantiation, for reference:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=147796

And this was related to the word "onslaught" in the meaning of "a large
quantity of people or things that is difficult to cope with"

There is no doubt that Tony, at the time and now, had some severe
difficulties to cope with the sheer amount of substantiation I provided for
my position (as outlined in the above link). Thus - I have provided support
for my position that the word "onslaught" was used correctly. As of yet, no
substantiations have been provided that contradict this.

Hope that helps, Eric.

--
Sandman[.net]