Ansel Adams, in my opinion, would have never touched digital. This guy used 8X10 glass negatives that took minutes to expose. All of his works were primarily about composition. He then perfected them in the darkroom. If you really look at his work, you understand his dedication to every detail and perfection. Anyone who thinks this guy would have settled for digital is completely mistaken.
Which kernel does it run? GNOME or KDE. Is this a precompiled kernel or one specific to the hardware? What file system does it use? Reiser? I mean a heads up display is nice and all, but if it isn't politically correct according to linux zealots, then I'm boycotting it. Alright, back to windows to play some games and use photoshop.
The camera system as a whole. You don't just by a body, you by lens. The lens system for the canon reble isn't as good as the one for the older cameras such as Nikon F1 or even Canon AE1. This is most likely because of all the autofocusing crap built into the lenses. And because of that, the canon eos system isn't as good as older systems. Therefore stay away from it. Please, someone reply back with FUD; I need christmas to come early this year.
This camera is crap. Cheap plastic crap. The lenses require so much light you need fast film or very expensive lenses (this guy is a beginner). To do anything manual in them is a pain in the ass. I used to work at a camera store and I've sold a lot of these and they were never as good as the used ones sitting in the glass case waiting for someone to appriciate them.
This camera is great for beginners and long time users. It is built solidly and you can feel is when you hold it. It accepts a lot of lens. Wide angle, telephoto, and a regular old 50mm. It does not have a motor in it and that isn't nessesary at all. The electronics it has can be used as an aid in exposer or to handle more work than you want to deal with. The lenses for these cameras are a lot faster than those for new canon rebels. By fast I mean they allow a lot more light in so you have more leeway in taking your shot. I learned photography on this camera and I worked at a camera store for years and this one was always my favorite.
I'm happy to see you want to get started in film photography. Digital photography is not nearly as good or with the wide range of techniques you can do. Prints always look better on film.
This eye candy just looks like crap slapped on an outdated and inefficient code base. Everyone bashes Microsoft for doing this to their GUI. Everyone applauds Apple for constantly reshaping their GUI making it look beautiful and work seamlessly. Now you see screenshots all around of people trying to copy OSX features. I really don't see the point in this.
If the linux community's "goal" is to get more people over to its side, then they need to attract them with something that they will use. They normal computer user doesn't care about the underlying code of Linux that makes it more stable than windows, they care about how it looks. Just look at all the people who installed Windows XP because it looked pretty, although it is a lot more stable than the 9X shit they peddled for years.
All this choice of window managers leads to every program looking different. Just about every program running in windows xp looks very similar if not the same. This is good. It gives people comfort. This is why apple and Microsoft do this.
But I am repeating what everyone is saying, that a major problem with window managers for linux is that they aren't compatible in that they don't look the same. We all know this already. What linux needs is a window manager that will get people to say "wow, this looks fucking awesome." Because what people don't realize is that most people have already paid for their copy of windows on their computer, so linux being free doesn't mean much. And since people don't care that the kernel is more stable, that's not going to mean shit.
I'm not saying a new window manager should resemble a first person shooter, but it should just look beautiful. That is why people switched to OSX, it's fucking gorgeous. But that's not to say linux should just copy it, because each time I see these stupid OSX or aqua eye candies for linux, I just slap my self in the head and wonder why they didn't just save all their time and buy a Mac if they want that so badly.
Maybe you're thinking I'm missing the point, yeah yeah, choice. I saw the matrix, I know all about the divines of choice, but people won't bother making that choice if the don't give a shit about how computers work.
I recently had my dell laptop's hard drive crash again, so this time I got Norton Ghost to make a copy of the c drive after I spent more hours setting it back up. The image is stored on my external firewire drive which I trust more than these laptop drives. I haven't had the need to restore it yet, but I imagine that using the "fixmbr" command on the windows 2000/XP cd should do the trick. Windows 95-ME had the "fdisk/mbr" command that would fix the master boot record. That should do the trick, if the ghost software doesn't do it anyway which is should.
If Gates ran a door manufacturing company he say this:
"Well, our doors don't have to be perfect to keep your home safe. In fact, the locks don't even need to function properly. If you want security, you should invest in a fence."
This is not meant to be flame bait or an insult to open source software, but when countries stop importing software from the US in favor of free software that got a lot of investment from US companies, that contributes to the US's national debt. Obviously most people don't care because when you compare our standard of living to those in other countries, especially vietnam, we'd be asses for complaining. But you still can't discount it. As much as some americans fight for free software, they can't neglect the effect it has on the gdp in our country that makes everyone in america somewhat better off. Although it sometimes isn't clear if that outweighs the microsoft tax we spend on each new computer.
I thought gator was a pain in the ass spy ware program slowing down my friends' computers. But now it's this claria. It's not spyware, it's behavior marketting. Didn't you guys see those people with happy faces on their website? They're happy because their behavior is being marketted. yay
Don't compare the average of what people make in both contries than figure out the proportion. Take the incomes of all the people who own computers in both countries and do that. Then you'll realize the numbers are quite different. Why? Because most of the people in places like vietnam make almost nothing. But there are a few rich people who make a lot of money. Those are the people who own computers and who are potential customers for microsoft. In this country where possibly more than half (not sure exactly, but we'll assume for now) own computers and pay for at least windows can afford it because our standard of living is much higher.
You can use statistics to prove anything. But most of the time people just prove themselves wrong.
Microsoft doesn't actually lose all this money. They just never get it. These people in vietnam aren't going to pay for real versions of microsoft. Why would they? Their government doesn't enforce the laws so it's pointless.
And the only reason vietnam and these other countries are doing this is to get themselves into the wto and other trading programs. Don't confuse this switch to open source as a country trying to embrace this magically free software idea. This is simply to seem like they're acting legitimately in front of the rest of the world.
The reason that this doesn't make much of a difference to microsoft is that how much money were they really getting from vietnam to begin with? They took in billions in revenue last year and maybe 50 million or so "lost" in piracy to vietnam is a drop in the bucket.
These third world countries aren't switching to open source because they want to, it's because it's the only way they can save money and maintain their status. Once vietnam gets into the wto, they'll probably end up making a lot of money through trade, so that's how they'll benefit most.
Here I am, in my computer science 1 class on a wednesday morning. The teacher is introducing a lab I've already completed so I choose to waste some more time on slashdot. Then I see this and realize I'm in my second year of a computer engineering degree and I've already been phased out. I should have been an education major.
What the hell are you talking about? American soldiers are dying there almost everyday. If you're an american, at least show some respect for that. If you're not, then you should stay out of the conversation because you aren't in america and then only viewpoint you probably see is from watching the war on TV.
While everyone is ranting about the annoyances of windows spyware, why isn't microsoft addressing this? They're in desperate need of something to sell their upcomming longhorn in a couple of years. I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring this up, but why don't they just focus on say a firewall/antivirus/antispyware tool in windows? It would make a lot of sense and it would allow them to really make the system more secure. They could adertise it as Windows Longhorn Internet Condom Edition. Alright, that was a joke, but this is meant to be serious. I just see it as really fucking obvious for microsoft to actively take a role in windows security and not rely on smaller companies like norton or adaware to fix the problems. I think a lot of people would buy windows if it had that feature. Otherwise, they're going to lose too much market share to linux that in general doesn't have to worry about this crap
The DRM in windows could have prevented soldiers from shooting their guns. I'm sure in Windows Soldier XP, you're only allowed to shoot yourself, and not the enemy due to licencing restrictions.
Now if only they could put that in planes...hmmm...flame me. I don't care. You're birthday wasn't forever ruined by september 11th
well here's my two cents on this
on
Digital 35mm SLRs?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I worked at a small town film lab during my high school years (2 years ago). I got into photography with the wonderful minolta x-700. I had an assortment of wide angle, telephoto, and fisheye lens that were not too expensive. I got film and processing for free and I usually had time to tweak each print to my liking.
I haven't gotten into digital photography as an art form (yet) because I guess I'm too much of a purest. There is something about the light particles/waves hitting the silver hallide emusion that takes me back. Watching the film come out of the developer was always fun. The best part, however, was watching the prints come out of the printer still hot.
When most people drop off their film, they do not know how each photo can be tweaked slightly to make it look a lot better. Most people drop their film off at a walmart 1 hour and get some inept pseudo technician to run them through the machines. So I can see how people get this empowerment of editing their photos in photoshop.
There are several things I have not seen digital cameras handle. One of which is my favorite, reciprosity failure. This allows incredible color shifts that occur when you leave the shutter open for a long time while still properly exposing the film. Few digital cameras have the bulb feature, exept for very expensive ones. Bulb allows you to capture star trails and make water falls look like ghosts sliding down rocks. These are emotions and experiences that people who make the switch to digital would probably not encounter.
If you want to take snapshots and the occasional wanna be photographer of some flower in your garden, then by all means try digital. You may save yourself a few bucks. But if you want to get completely engorged in real photography, keep taking pictures on real film. And I still think there is a lot more technology and innovation in kodak film than kodak cameras (I own both).
As for an answer to the parent, try it out. Go to a local camera store that carries that camera and check it out hands on. See how it feels and works. I've sold a lot of film Canon Rebels and I always thought they were chincy and too plasitiky. So in that respect, I'd stay away from them. If you want to get into photography and don't think that you must go digital, invest a couple hundred dollars in a nice used canon ae1, nikon f1, or minolta x-700. It will take a little more effort to make a good picture, but it's so worth it. And make sure you take your film to a good place, trust me. I've worked at these places and it makes a HUGE difference. You have no idea how a place like walmart or cvs can save on time and money that local shops won't
Well here's why. Say for example you have a slow cable modem or dsl. You would rather download the iso's in the background for half a day and then burn them to a cd. you don't want to give up your computer for that time while the installation downloads and installs the files. Over the summer I spent a couple days downloading the tree for suse 8.2 because I didn't want to give up my computer that time. ISO's would have been more convenient since this approach didn't take well to yast. It kept asking for installation cd's every time I tried to update it. Go figure.
I thought that this was pretty obvious reason for the iso's, but hey, what do I know anymore? And why do they not offer them anymore? Well because why pay for a cd when you can burn it? But you have a reason to pay for it to avoid this hassle.
actually, this whole X10 stuff has been around for a while. I've seen it in all sorts of home automation gadgets. I don't know if it's a specific standard, or just a collection of shared information, but I know I've seen them in radioshack long before those damn pop-up and pop-under ads drove me insane with frustration.
I run windows xp pro and I usually check windows update at least once a week. I keep my virus defs updated too. Ironically, this is "proactive" security measures.
The windows patches I download are usually the critical updates and some of the "recommended updates." I am doubtful of the driver updates because the current NVIDIA driver wasn't too stable. I don't enable automatic updates, but I do that for my parents' and sister's computer because like most people they don't understand what patch security is.
I haven't had any real problems with patches screwing up my computer, except for that NVIDIA driver. But I did take comfort in Window's driver rollback that allowed me to the older driver that was stable.
I think that this system up update patches at one source makes things a lot easier than finding patches for windows 95 like back in the day. But obviously if they base system was more stable and secure, I wouldn't have to update as frequently.
um...Photoshop elements or any of the many other graphics programs out there that is designed for people to do simple tasks without paying for a $700 program.
Slashdot Mirror
Ansel Adams, in my opinion, would have never touched digital. This guy used 8X10 glass negatives that took minutes to expose. All of his works were primarily about composition. He then perfected them in the darkroom. If you really look at his work, you understand his dedication to every detail and perfection. Anyone who thinks this guy would have settled for digital is completely mistaken.
Which kernel does it run? GNOME or KDE. Is this a precompiled kernel or one specific to the hardware? What file system does it use? Reiser? I mean a heads up display is nice and all, but if it isn't politically correct according to linux zealots, then I'm boycotting it. Alright, back to windows to play some games and use photoshop.
The camera system as a whole. You don't just by a body, you by lens. The lens system for the canon reble isn't as good as the one for the older cameras such as Nikon F1 or even Canon AE1. This is most likely because of all the autofocusing crap built into the lenses. And because of that, the canon eos system isn't as good as older systems. Therefore stay away from it. Please, someone reply back with FUD; I need christmas to come early this year.
This camera is crap. Cheap plastic crap. The lenses require so much light you need fast film or very expensive lenses (this guy is a beginner). To do anything manual in them is a pain in the ass. I used to work at a camera store and I've sold a lot of these and they were never as good as the used ones sitting in the glass case waiting for someone to appriciate them.
This camera is great for beginners and long time users. It is built solidly and you can feel is when you hold it. It accepts a lot of lens. Wide angle, telephoto, and a regular old 50mm. It does not have a motor in it and that isn't nessesary at all. The electronics it has can be used as an aid in exposer or to handle more work than you want to deal with. The lenses for these cameras are a lot faster than those for new canon rebels. By fast I mean they allow a lot more light in so you have more leeway in taking your shot. I learned photography on this camera and I worked at a camera store for years and this one was always my favorite.
I'm happy to see you want to get started in film photography. Digital photography is not nearly as good or with the wide range of techniques you can do. Prints always look better on film.
If I could get a cd at my music store 40 minutes away for $10 I might consider. Try $22.
Has your father ever asked you to "fax him an email"? I see the use of the word "download" butchered all the time. I never hear "upload" used though.
This eye candy just looks like crap slapped on an outdated and inefficient code base. Everyone bashes Microsoft for doing this to their GUI. Everyone applauds Apple for constantly reshaping their GUI making it look beautiful and work seamlessly. Now you see screenshots all around of people trying to copy OSX features. I really don't see the point in this.
If the linux community's "goal" is to get more people over to its side, then they need to attract them with something that they will use. They normal computer user doesn't care about the underlying code of Linux that makes it more stable than windows, they care about how it looks. Just look at all the people who installed Windows XP because it looked pretty, although it is a lot more stable than the 9X shit they peddled for years.
All this choice of window managers leads to every program looking different. Just about every program running in windows xp looks very similar if not the same. This is good. It gives people comfort. This is why apple and Microsoft do this.
But I am repeating what everyone is saying, that a major problem with window managers for linux is that they aren't compatible in that they don't look the same. We all know this already. What linux needs is a window manager that will get people to say "wow, this looks fucking awesome." Because what people don't realize is that most people have already paid for their copy of windows on their computer, so linux being free doesn't mean much. And since people don't care that the kernel is more stable, that's not going to mean shit.
I'm not saying a new window manager should resemble a first person shooter, but it should just look beautiful. That is why people switched to OSX, it's fucking gorgeous. But that's not to say linux should just copy it, because each time I see these stupid OSX or aqua eye candies for linux, I just slap my self in the head and wonder why they didn't just save all their time and buy a Mac if they want that so badly.
Maybe you're thinking I'm missing the point, yeah yeah, choice. I saw the matrix, I know all about the divines of choice, but people won't bother making that choice if the don't give a shit about how computers work.
I recently had my dell laptop's hard drive crash again, so this time I got Norton Ghost to make a copy of the c drive after I spent more hours setting it back up. The image is stored on my external firewire drive which I trust more than these laptop drives. I haven't had the need to restore it yet, but I imagine that using the "fixmbr" command on the windows 2000/XP cd should do the trick. Windows 95-ME had the "fdisk /mbr" command that would fix the master boot record. That should do the trick, if the ghost software doesn't do it anyway which is should.
If Gates ran a door manufacturing company he say this:
"Well, our doors don't have to be perfect to keep your home safe. In fact, the locks don't even need to function properly. If you want security, you should invest in a fence."
This is not meant to be flame bait or an insult to open source software, but when countries stop importing software from the US in favor of free software that got a lot of investment from US companies, that contributes to the US's national debt. Obviously most people don't care because when you compare our standard of living to those in other countries, especially vietnam, we'd be asses for complaining. But you still can't discount it. As much as some americans fight for free software, they can't neglect the effect it has on the gdp in our country that makes everyone in america somewhat better off. Although it sometimes isn't clear if that outweighs the microsoft tax we spend on each new computer.
I thought gator was a pain in the ass spy ware program slowing down my friends' computers. But now it's this claria. It's not spyware, it's behavior marketting. Didn't you guys see those people with happy faces on their website? They're happy because their behavior is being marketted. yay
Don't compare the average of what people make in both contries than figure out the proportion. Take the incomes of all the people who own computers in both countries and do that. Then you'll realize the numbers are quite different. Why? Because most of the people in places like vietnam make almost nothing. But there are a few rich people who make a lot of money. Those are the people who own computers and who are potential customers for microsoft. In this country where possibly more than half (not sure exactly, but we'll assume for now) own computers and pay for at least windows can afford it because our standard of living is much higher.
You can use statistics to prove anything. But most of the time people just prove themselves wrong.
Microsoft doesn't actually lose all this money. They just never get it. These people in vietnam aren't going to pay for real versions of microsoft. Why would they? Their government doesn't enforce the laws so it's pointless.
And the only reason vietnam and these other countries are doing this is to get themselves into the wto and other trading programs. Don't confuse this switch to open source as a country trying to embrace this magically free software idea. This is simply to seem like they're acting legitimately in front of the rest of the world.
The reason that this doesn't make much of a difference to microsoft is that how much money were they really getting from vietnam to begin with? They took in billions in revenue last year and maybe 50 million or so "lost" in piracy to vietnam is a drop in the bucket.
These third world countries aren't switching to open source because they want to, it's because it's the only way they can save money and maintain their status. Once vietnam gets into the wto, they'll probably end up making a lot of money through trade, so that's how they'll benefit most.
Here I am, in my computer science 1 class on a wednesday morning. The teacher is introducing a lab I've already completed so I choose to waste some more time on slashdot. Then I see this and realize I'm in my second year of a computer engineering degree and I've already been phased out. I should have been an education major.
What the hell are you talking about? American soldiers are dying there almost everyday. If you're an american, at least show some respect for that. If you're not, then you should stay out of the conversation because you aren't in america and then only viewpoint you probably see is from watching the war on TV.
While everyone is ranting about the annoyances of windows spyware, why isn't microsoft addressing this? They're in desperate need of something to sell their upcomming longhorn in a couple of years. I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring this up, but why don't they just focus on say a firewall/antivirus/antispyware tool in windows? It would make a lot of sense and it would allow them to really make the system more secure. They could adertise it as Windows Longhorn Internet Condom Edition. Alright, that was a joke, but this is meant to be serious. I just see it as really fucking obvious for microsoft to actively take a role in windows security and not rely on smaller companies like norton or adaware to fix the problems. I think a lot of people would buy windows if it had that feature. Otherwise, they're going to lose too much market share to linux that in general doesn't have to worry about this crap
The DRM in windows could have prevented soldiers from shooting their guns. I'm sure in Windows Soldier XP, you're only allowed to shoot yourself, and not the enemy due to licencing restrictions.
Now if only they could put that in planes...hmmm...flame me. I don't care. You're birthday wasn't forever ruined by september 11th
I worked at a small town film lab during my high school years (2 years ago). I got into photography with the wonderful minolta x-700. I had an assortment of wide angle, telephoto, and fisheye lens that were not too expensive. I got film and processing for free and I usually had time to tweak each print to my liking.
I haven't gotten into digital photography as an art form (yet) because I guess I'm too much of a purest. There is something about the light particles/waves hitting the silver hallide emusion that takes me back. Watching the film come out of the developer was always fun. The best part, however, was watching the prints come out of the printer still hot.
When most people drop off their film, they do not know how each photo can be tweaked slightly to make it look a lot better. Most people drop their film off at a walmart 1 hour and get some inept pseudo technician to run them through the machines. So I can see how people get this empowerment of editing their photos in photoshop.
There are several things I have not seen digital cameras handle. One of which is my favorite, reciprosity failure. This allows incredible color shifts that occur when you leave the shutter open for a long time while still properly exposing the film. Few digital cameras have the bulb feature, exept for very expensive ones. Bulb allows you to capture star trails and make water falls look like ghosts sliding down rocks. These are emotions and experiences that people who make the switch to digital would probably not encounter.
If you want to take snapshots and the occasional wanna be photographer of some flower in your garden, then by all means try digital. You may save yourself a few bucks. But if you want to get completely engorged in real photography, keep taking pictures on real film. And I still think there is a lot more technology and innovation in kodak film than kodak cameras (I own both).
As for an answer to the parent, try it out. Go to a local camera store that carries that camera and check it out hands on. See how it feels and works. I've sold a lot of film Canon Rebels and I always thought they were chincy and too plasitiky. So in that respect, I'd stay away from them. If you want to get into photography and don't think that you must go digital, invest a couple hundred dollars in a nice used canon ae1, nikon f1, or minolta x-700. It will take a little more effort to make a good picture, but it's so worth it. And make sure you take your film to a good place, trust me. I've worked at these places and it makes a HUGE difference. You have no idea how a place like walmart or cvs can save on time and money that local shops won't
Well here's why. Say for example you have a slow cable modem or dsl. You would rather download the iso's in the background for half a day and then burn them to a cd. you don't want to give up your computer for that time while the installation downloads and installs the files. Over the summer I spent a couple days downloading the tree for suse 8.2 because I didn't want to give up my computer that time. ISO's would have been more convenient since this approach didn't take well to yast. It kept asking for installation cd's every time I tried to update it. Go figure.
I thought that this was pretty obvious reason for the iso's, but hey, what do I know anymore? And why do they not offer them anymore? Well because why pay for a cd when you can burn it? But you have a reason to pay for it to avoid this hassle.
actually, this whole X10 stuff has been around for a while. I've seen it in all sorts of home automation gadgets. I don't know if it's a specific standard, or just a collection of shared information, but I know I've seen them in radioshack long before those damn pop-up and pop-under ads drove me insane with frustration.
And unless Microsoft decides to make radical changes to Office, it will remain a closed system. The same goes for every other product they sell.
I run windows xp pro and I usually check windows update at least once a week. I keep my virus defs updated too. Ironically, this is "proactive" security measures.
The windows patches I download are usually the critical updates and some of the "recommended updates." I am doubtful of the driver updates because the current NVIDIA driver wasn't too stable. I don't enable automatic updates, but I do that for my parents' and sister's computer because like most people they don't understand what patch security is.
I haven't had any real problems with patches screwing up my computer, except for that NVIDIA driver. But I did take comfort in Window's driver rollback that allowed me to the older driver that was stable.
I think that this system up update patches at one source makes things a lot easier than finding patches for windows 95 like back in the day. But obviously if they base system was more stable and secure, I wouldn't have to update as frequently.
um...Photoshop elements or any of the many other graphics programs out there that is designed for people to do simple tasks without paying for a $700 program.