I typically shoot 500-700 in a morning session of racing, for
example. Total of 2500-3000 a weekend.
-Stephen
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:52:09 -0500
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: LR vs. Photo Mechanic
>
> Hmmm. Might we ask how many images you typically shoot if "several
> seconds per image" is impossibly slow?
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Stephen Scharf wrote:
>> As much as I like and use Lightroom (and I really do like it, I use
>> it for about 80% of my work now), it still isn't fast enough for my
>> needs for deadline press when reviewing a large take to create a set
>> of selects for deadline press. It often takes several seconds per
>> image where I get a "loading" or "waiting" message.
>>
>> I've taken to using iViewMedia Pro recently to very quickly go
>> through my take and create a set of files for further editing in LR.
>> If I had Photomechanic, I would use it, but as they don't have online
>> sales available (still, after 5 years now....), I haven't bought it
>> yet, and as I have iViewMedia Pro, that's what I use. One of the nice
>> things about iViewMedia Pro and PM is that you can edit right from
>> the card, rather than having to import from the card into a LR
>> catalog first.
>>
>> But, I will say that LR lets me now shoot in RAW for deadline press,
>> and provides a sufficiently fast workflow for me to edit a set of
>> selects very quickly and export them for my PR directors for deadline
>> press. I couldn't do that previously in ACR and Bridge....just WAY
>> too slow.
>>
>> -Stephen.
>>
>>
>>> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:39:53 -0800
>>> From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: [OM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
>>>
>>>
>>> Photo Mechanic, an image manager, has been very popular with event
>>> pros, but it seems that it is gradually being displaced by
>>> Lightroom.
>>>
>>> Winsor
>>> Long Beach, California, USA
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:56:46 -0500
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: How good is that 35-100/F2?
>
> How did that come about?
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Richard Man wrote:
>
>>
>> [1]Also, Michael Johnston used one of my photo for his blog on
>> sensor size:
>> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/
>> 2008/02/sens
>> or-sizes-pa.html[2]
>>
>> That's my 5 seconds of fame.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:03:14 -0500
>
>
> I read (here, I think) that Apple has somehow managed to follow WWII
> German armor nomenclature. If that's the case, I'm waiting for OS
> Sturmgaschutz.
>
> --Bob Whitmire
> Loved the Panther tank, hated for whom it worked (same could be said
> for the Russian T-36)
> www.bwp33.com
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2008, at 3:53 AM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
>> I think I'll postpone upgrading until they reach OS X v.16 'Tasmanian
>> Devil, or perhaps 17 - 'Deranged Possum'. Even 19. 'Surly Wombat'.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:19:58 -0600
> From: Paul Braun <cygnus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Yesterday's Lunar Eclipse
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> The Prince of Darkness played havoc with my Sunbeam Alpine (what I
>> drove
>> before the XKE) but I drove the XKE to work everyday for about 4
>> years
>> and it never failed to startup and get me there... until the day the
>> rear suspension cage nearly fell out of the car on a winding mountain
>> road. But that's a long, ugly story.
>>
> Ouch!
>
> I'm trying to remember -- did the XKE have inboard brake discs like
> the
> XJ6, or was that a later development?
>
> --
>
>
>
> Paul Braun
> Valparaiso, IN
>
> "It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever." - David St.
> Hubbins
>
> "Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon
>
> "The Fountain of Youth is a state of mind." - The Ides of March
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: OT: in the UK, who is responsible for goods
> damaged in transi
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:32:54 +0000
>
>
> Thanks, James.
>
> I'm glad that your transaction turned out all right in the end.
>
> Chris
>
> On 22 Feb 2008, at 10:34, James R wrote:
>
>> I had a bad experience with a used car purchase 18 months ago and
>> went
>> the route of the small claims court. The dealer did pay up when he
>> saw
>> I was serious; he was obviously trying it on and getting a few months
>> free credit as a minimum.
>>
>> Remember that the small claims court system is set up so that lawyers
>> need not be hired and the judge listens to both sides of the story
>> (with evidence). The whole system seems to be set up with an
>> unusually
>> common sense approach. There's clearly something wrong with the story
>> that the claimant has given your son, so I wouldn't hesitate to tell
>> him to take a flying jump...
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:32:57 -0600
> From: "Komtanoo Pinpimai" <romerun@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
>
>
> Thanks ! I didn't noticed that it needs a head. The only head I
> have is the
> 486rc2 which is probably too big.
> I've owned the joby compact camera version and tried to mount my
> E330 on it,
> the greatest problem is ball on the top
> is not stiff enough to hold pretty heavy thing. I suspect the joby SLR
> [without zoom] might have the same problem
> with long lens. So, replacing the top ball with the real head is
> likely to
> solve it. Heh, feel like my wallet is gonna be lighter this time.
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Garth Wood wrote:
>>> Komtanoo Pinpimai wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.joby.com/products/gorillapod/slrzoom/
>>>>
>>>> Anyone has this ? Does it work ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep. Took it to Britain and Crete with me last spring. Works
>>> well in
>>> most situations. If you can, try it out in a camera store first,
>>> just
>>> to see if you're comfortable with the whole idea of the thing.
>>>
>> As another inveterate searcher for the perfect travel tripod, I also
>> have one. I took it to the US NE last year.
>>
>> I found it pretty decent. Much more flexible (literally) set-up to
>> adapt
>> to uneven surfaces than anything else I've seen. Solid enough to hold
>> the 5D with Tammy 28-300 VC, or the similar size/weight E-3 with a
>> decent size lens as long as the legs are fairly straight. With a
>> significant bned in a leg a heavy "DSLR plus zoom" load and you may
>> experience creep at the joint. I've only had that happen once, but it
>> might increase with age and use. The leg composition/construction
>> inherently resists vibration with enough weight on them.
>>
>> I never had occasion to hang a few $1,000 of camera and lens by
>> wrapping
>> it around a tree limb or some such. I suppose I would, as long as
>> I held
>> onto the strap. Works nicely to prop against something solid, like
>> trees, rocks, buildings, etc.
>>
>> Unlike their smaller ones, it doesn't have a built-in QR plate/
>> receiver
>> combo. So mounting it directly involves spinning the whole thing onto
>> the camera. Precise aiming would then be a frustrating exercise.
>> So it
>> really needs a head. I used the small head from the Velbon 343e
>> tripod.
>> Any decent small head should do, but you are going to need something.
>>
>> The next question is to QR or not to QR. Spinning a tripod this
>> size on
>> and off by hand isn't that big a deal. But if you want QR, most
>> systems
>> are too big and awkward. Even my favorite Cullmann QR system,
>> although
>> the plates are small, has a big receiver that would be awkward for
>> this
>> use.
>>
>> I just got a small Velbon QR system I've been looking at for some
>> time.
>> <
>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?
>> O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=322209&is=REG
>>>
>> The plates are a bit smaller than the Cullmanns and have a firm,
>> slightly tacky rubber friction surface that grips pretty well in the
>> couple of days I've had it.
>>
>> The real advantage is in the receiver. It is metal (light, probably
>> aluminum alloy, maybe magnesium) and MUCH smaller than the
>> Cullmann, or
>> anything else I've seen. Yet they manage to borrow from the Manfrotto
>> playbook for easy one handed connect and disconnect.
>>
>> Pushing the plate into place in the receiver releases the spring
>> loaded
>> cam lock to grab the plate. You will have to give it a push for no
>> flex
>> with a heavy camera/lens, but it's secure enough to be safe right
>> away.
>>
>> Pull back on the cam lock and the plate pops up a bit to keep the
>> lock
>> from re-engaging and assist pulling it out.
>>
>> So far, I'm quite impressed. Possible disadvantage - no anti
>> twist/unscrew provision. I think I can live with that as a trade-
>> off for
>> size, price and other functionality.
>>
>> The alternative compact tripod I also rather like is the Ultrapod II.
>> <
>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/239963-REG/
>> Ultrapod_PD02010_Ultrapod_2_Black.html
>>>
>> Less flexible and the built-in ball head thingie is a little
>> quirky. but
>> it's smaller. lighter, less expensive, especially compared to a
>> Gorilla
>> with added head and/or QR, and has a velcro strap to do the
>> "attach to
>> things" thing. It works.
>>
>> Moose
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Hurt recalls you're still alive.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: OT: in the UK, who is responsible for goods
> damaged in transi
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:36:17 +0000
>
>
> David
>
> Thanks for your advice. It was in 2 separate communications. There
> was an early notification of the damage (within a week or so), but he
> has only just "rejected" the computer and asked for a refund. The
> initial exchange of emails ended with my son's giving him information
> about the claims procedure with Royal Mail; which information seemed
> to satisfy him for the intervening period.
>
> It was an eBay transaction. It might have been coincidental, but the
> initial photo of the damage showed the computer resting on a concrete
> surface ...
>
> Chris
>
> On 22 Feb 2008, at 10:28, David Bell wrote:
>
>> You said the buyer advised of the damage and has only now asked for
>> refund.
>> Was this two separate communications?
>>
>> How did the sale come about? Did your son advertise? I assume this
>> was not
>> an e-bay transaction. Was there a written contract of sale? How was
>> it paid
>> for? Was there an exchange of e-mails which could be included in the
>> missives of negotiating the contract?
>>
>> Don't think these cases are clear cut however the delay in advising
>> your son
>> that the goods were damaged is in my view unreasonably long. Is the
>> cost to
>> put right the damage within the £150 limit, in which case it may be
>> simplest
>> to get a claim in and put the damage right?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: OT: in the UK, who is responsible for goods
> damaged in transi
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:37:21 +0000
>
>
> Heh! That might wind him up a bit ...
>
> Chris
>
> On 22 Feb 2008, at 12:28, NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>
>> Chris, the other piece is that given the amount time which has lapsed
>> between the shipment and the complaint, I'd probably tell the buyer
>> to go howl at
>> the moon. Bill Barber
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:41:10 +0000
>
>
> You're on Tiger, Bob:-) And it is good, without a doubt, but I like
> the facilities of Leopard. In particular, Time Machine makes me feel
> really quite secure. It has done hourly backups for the last 24
> hours, daily backups for the last month and weekly backups back to 9
> December when I bought my 1TB backup machine.
>
> Chris
>
> On 23 Feb 2008, at 18:47, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>
>> I think I upgraded an OS once without a lot of trouble. But I don't
>> recall when. <g> Mac folks keep telling me I'll like Leopard, but I
>> like Tiger just fine. Or is it Panther. Sigh.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:34:43 -0500
>
>
> Time machine seems to be the facility of Leopard that is getting all
> the attention. Even as I type this Esteemed Wife is downstairs
> loading Leopard onto her laptop. I'll see how it goes with her. <g>
>
> --Bob Whitmire
> www.bwp33.com
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
>> And it is good, without a doubt, but I like the facilities of
>> Leopard.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: [SPAM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:56:33 +1100
>
>
> ...or virtually any weapon. How clever we are with the machinery of
> death.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 25/02/2008, at 1:03 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>
>> Loved the Panther tank, hated for whom it worked (same could be said
>> for the Russian T-36)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:04:43 +1100
>
>
> Putting a head on it seems like overkill - the small version was
> obviously outmatched by the E-330.
> A friend bought a cheap knock-off and found it totally inadequate -
> avoid that.
> It is nice that they sell it unpackaged - to be commended.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 25/02/2008, at 3:32 AM, Komtanoo Pinpimai wrote:
>
>> I've owned the joby compact camera version and tried to mount my
>> E330 on it,
>> the greatest problem is ball on the top
>> is not stiff enough to hold pretty heavy thing. I suspect the joby
>> SLR
>> [without zoom] might have the same problem
>> with long lens. So, replacing the top ball with the real head is
>> likely to
>> solve it. Heh, feel like my wallet is gonna be lighter this time.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: [SPAM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:08:23 -0500
>
>
> Our destructive proclivities have always fascinated me, but it's a
> dark fascination. I take refuge in the certainty that I'd rather play
> with my wife than any actual instrument of destruction. <g>
>
> --Bob Whitmire
> www.bwp33.com
>
> On Feb 24, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
>> ...or virtually any weapon. How clever we are with the machinery of
>> death.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:12:52 +1100
>
>
> If yu must use a head, this would seem to be appropriate in price and
> style -
> http://cgi.ebay.com/PRO-CAMERA-TRIPOD-BALL-HEAD-for-Canon-rebel-
> xt-400d-40d_W0QQitemZ140208513459
> - and the seller has a good reputation.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 25/02/2008, at 3:32 AM, Komtanoo Pinpimai wrote:
>
>> Thanks ! I didn't noticed that it needs a head. The only head I
>> have is the
>> 486rc2 which is probably too big.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: [SPAM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:40:43 +1100
>
>
> Assuming that they are not the same thing - I suspect that several
> list members have experienced that unfortunate coincidence.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 25/02/2008, at 7:08 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>
>> I take refuge in the certainty that I'd rather play
>> with my wife than any actual instrument of destruction. <g>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: [SPAM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:49:01 -0500
>
>
> Would that be coincidence or confluence? <g>
>
> --Bob Whitmire
> www.bwp33.com
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2008, at 3:40 PM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
>> Assuming that they are not the same thing - I suspect that several
>> list members have experienced that unfortunate coincidence.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:22:14 -0800
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
>
> Andrew Fildes wrote:
>> Putting a head on it seems like overkill - the small version was
>> obviously outmatched by the E-330.
>>
> It doesn't have the "neck vertebrae" that the two smaller ones do.
> [Probably a good thing, see below] The legs end in a solid platform
> with
> /14-20 screw sticking up from it. Aiming would involve fine tuning the
> bends in three stiffish legs, A touchy and time consuming business.
> Then
> if the camera and lens are heavy, there is the possibility of creep
> with
> sharp bends in the legs.
>
> I would not find it usable without a head and notice that B&H sell
> it in
> a couple of kits with heads.
>
> The inherent weakness with all of them is the unadjustable flex
> joints,
> nine in each leg and a couple in the "neck" of the smaller two. It is
> never any stronger than the weakest/loosest joint and I expect them to
> loosen up with use. It takes much less than an E-330 to overwhelm the
> smallest one. It's fine with the F30, barely usable with the A710
> (neck), which has it's tripod socket way at one end, and completely
> useless with the A650 (legs), even with the socket in the middle.
>
> All in all, a great idea that's only ok in practice, not great. I was
> disturbed by the leg joint creep I experienced yesterday. I had it
> sitting on my desk with 5D and 28-300 VC on it while I wrote about it.
> The legs were all bent somewhat in various ways. I caught some slow
> motion out of the corner of my eye. The leg nearest the edge was
> slowly
> sliding toward the edge. I caught it before it went over - which would
> NOT have made me happy.
>
> At first, I thought it was the whole thing a little off balance, which
> would be my fault, and the friction of the rubber on the end of the
> leg
> slipping. Further investigation revealed that a leg joint was slowly
> moving where one leg had a slightly sharp negative bend in it.
>
> With the legs straighter, it seems secure enough, but I'm going to
> watch
> it more carefully in the future. At least the QR makes it easy to only
> have the camera mounted when actually in use.
>
> On balance, I think the Ultrapod may be the better product. Less
> flexible on an uneven surface and quirkier to aim and lock, but not
> subject to collapsing under weight. On the other hand, it's base is
> smaller, so it would be easier to knock over with a large camera and
> lens on it. It's closer in size to the medium gorilla. Maybe a larger,
> #3 size Ultrapod will show up one day.
>
> The perfect solution doesn't exist, I'm afraid.
>> A friend bought a cheap knock-off and found it totally inadequate
>> - avoid that.
>> It is nice that they sell it unpackaged - to be commended.
>>
> It's sold packaged here. The big one used only recyclable cardboard
> and
> twine, but I think I may have seen the little one in plastic a few
> days
> ago. Certainly the packets of extra QR clips were in plastic.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:26:25 -0800
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: How good is that 35-100/F2?
>
> Richard Man wrote:
>> I shot the SF Coronation tonight, that F2 and in body
>> stabilization is a godsend:
>> http://www.dragonsgate.net/photopost/data/3268/32230964.jpg
>>
> Nice.
>> [1]Also, Michael Johnston used one of my photo for his blog on
>> sensor size:
>> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/
>> 2008/02/sens
>> or-sizes-pa.html[2]
>>
>> That's my 5 seconds of fame.
>>
> Not hers? :-)
>
> It was a surprise, wandering through Mike's blog, to see someone I
> knew
> by sight. Nice portrait, by the way, but with better color balance and
> skin tone on his site than on yours.
>
> Mose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:34:17 -0800
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: LR vs. Photo Mechanic
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Hmmm. Might we ask how many images you typically shoot if "several
>> seconds per image" is impossibly slow?
>>
> Motorsports coverage. At least hundreds of shots per day of
> competition,
> I'd guess.
>
> Stephen lives (lived?) not far from me and was kind enough to loan me
> his D60 for a few days before I made the 300D decision. Motorsports
> shots don't generally much interest me, but his large prints were
> certainly excellent photography even then.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:55:50 +0100
> From: Bernard Frangoulis <lists@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
>
> Quoting Moose (24/02/08):
>> On balance, I think the Ultrapod may be the better product. Less
>> flexible on an uneven surface and quirkier to aim and lock, but not
>> subject to collapsing under weight. On the other hand, it's base is
>> smaller, so it would be easier to knock over with a large camera and
>> lens on it. It's closer in size to the medium gorilla. Maybe a
>> larger,
>> #3 size Ultrapod will show up one day.
>
> I was thinking that the Gorillapod was noticeably larger and
> stronger than the Ultrapod. Is it not the case? I have used an
> Ultrapod with my OM-4 plus 35-105 zoom, and it was OK, although the
> head was flimsy. I have never even seen a Gorillapod (except on
> pictures). How would you compare them ?
>
> These days, my small tripod of choice (with the E-1 or the D200) is
> an old Leica table tripod (which I got for cheap on *Bay), with a
> small RRS BH-25 tripod head. Not much bigger than the ultrapod, and
> inspires more confidence... Very stable.
>
> Bernard
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:59:09 -0800
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Yup, I bought it some time ago but haven't shot an event since.
>> Just as well because I haven't figured out how to use it. I have
>> the Luminous Landscape 1,000 hour long video tutorial but I
>> haven't been able to drag myself through more than the first hour.
>>
> That exciting, huh? And here I've been thinking about trying their
> printing video.
>> Yes, it's for processing lots of images in a similar manner but
>> it's also much more than that. What it isn't is an image editor.
> That seems to be a matter of individual definition. I certainly don't
> consider it an image editor, so it drove me nuts. I could only go part
> way, then had to move to PS.
>
> But there seem to be lots of folks who want no more than the
> modest, to
> me, levels, curves, WB, contrast, brightness and such controls it does
> have (and something like LCE after the beta?). For them, it's an
> editor.
>
> It seems to me that there is a continuum between pure RAW converter,
> like the DOS prompt, no visuals, but very capable, dcraw, and full
> featured editors, with PS as the overkill posterboy. LR is
> somewhere in
> the middle, with a pretty comprehensive set of overall image
> adjustments. Hmmm, what am I doing defending something I hated?
> Must be
> the Spock principle.
>> It does not replace PhotoShop for anything beyond basic raw
>> conversion, exposure and color correction and cropping.
>>
>> Since I have PhotoShop CS3 I also have Bridge. But for what
>> Bridge does I much prefer Breeze Browser. But, AFAIK, Breeze
>> Browser won't allow me to open a JPEG in ACR so I'm forced to use
>> Bridge from time to time.
>>
> Yeah, I use FastStone, which is much like BB for that purpose, but
> also
> need bridge to open a JPEG in ACR. I'm not sure I see much
> advantage in
> that, though.
>
> How do you find processing a JPEG in ACR useful? It's nice to be
> able to
> slide the WB slider, but without any absolute K settings, not that
> big a
> deal so far. I'm probably missing something.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:59:45 +0100
> From: Bernard Frangoulis <lists@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: LR vs. Photo Mechanic
>
> Quoting Stephen Scharf (23/02/08):
>> If I had Photomechanic, I would use it, but as they don't have online
>> sales available (still, after 5 years now....), I haven't bought it
>> yet, and as I have iViewMedia Pro, that's what I use.
>
> I use PhotoMecanic, which is an excellent piece of software. I
> simply phoned them to give my credit card number. And I live in
> France... Sure, online sales would be better. But the whole thing
> went very smoothly.
>
> BTW, on the PM forum, they have said several times that they are
> working on a separate program which would be a "DAM"' tool.
>
> Bernard
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:20:27 -0600
> From: "Komtanoo Pinpimai" <romerun@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
>
>
> I'd be more worried if I need to mount it on such heavy body and
> long lens
> like that (which is what they advertise on the name of it).
> I guess it also depends on the center of mass, besides the
> advertise weight
> ( 3000g ), to avoid putting too much load on a joint.
> In standing position, Ultrapod, should be the better choice because
> there's
> no joint involves. The true strength of the Gorilla will come out
> on the
> wrapping position.
> Without the _ neck vertebrae _, it should mostly depend on the
> strength of
> legs wrapping objects and the strength of head attached to the tripod.
>
> Anyway, I only plan to mount it with E330 and 14-42 which is about
> 1/3 of
> its weight spec.
>
>
>> All in all, a great idea that's only ok in practice, not great. I was
>> disturbed by the leg joint creep I experienced yesterday. I had it
>> sitting on my desk with 5D and 28-300 VC on it while I wrote about
>> it.
>> The legs were all bent somewhat in various ways. I caught some slow
>> motion out of the corner of my eye. The leg nearest the edge was
>> slowly
>> sliding toward the edge. I caught it before it went over - which
>> would
>> NOT have made me happy.
>>
>> At first, I thought it was the whole thing a little off balance,
>> which
>> would be my fault, and the friction of the rubber on the end of
>> the leg
>> slipping. Further investigation revealed that a leg joint was slowly
>> moving where one leg had a slightly sharp negative bend in it.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:25:55 -0800
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: OT: in the UK, who is responsible for goods damaged
>
> Bob Whitmire wrote:
>> If the smiley wasn't there, I'd swear this was a man who'd never
>> read Kafka. <wink>
>>
> Never having been on the wrong end of the class, political, etc.
> spectrum in an authoritarian state (so far), I am perhaps too
> sanguine.
>
> I also heave dealt with the IRS at the corporate level (beat 'em in
> court!) and had a couple of friends (one a pretty good MF photog) who
> did so for a living. So I've seen the other side. Agents and
> offices are
> rated much like businesses, on return. Spending time beating taxpayers
> up over little things that can't, by their nature, return much
> additional tax revenue for the time spent, just results in poor
> performance reviews and lack of promotion.
>
> The Infernal Revenue Service exists to generate income, tax revenue,
> hence the name. Putting people in jail increases gov't costs, not
> revenue, so is not their preferred choice. Settlement over
> prosecution.
>
> I also don't knowingly cheat on my taxes am lucky enough to know
> competent tax counsel and be able to afford it in a pinch. They aren't
> much interested in folks in my, even more modest since retirement, tax
> bracket for audits. The return on investment just isn't there.
>
> So Kafka has little relevance for my exterior life. As a chronicler of
> certain aspects of interior, psychological life, though, he was quite
> exceptional. I wouldn't want to meet his superego in a dark alley. ;-)
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:46:18 -0800
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
>
> Komtanoo Pinpimai wrote:
>> I'd be more worried if I need to mount it on such heavy body and
>> long lens like that (which is what they advertise on the name of it).
>> I guess it also depends on the center of mass, besides the
>> advertise weight ( 3000g ), to avoid putting too much load on a
>> joint.
>>
> I just weighed the camera, lens, QR, head, strap - 1800 g., not much
> more than half the stated capacity. The lens is only about 10 cm long
> and under 600 g, so the load isn't particularly off center for an SLR
> with zoom.
>
> So I'd have to say my copy doesn't reliably meet spec.
>> In standing position, Ultrapod, should be the better choice
>> because there's no joint involves. The true strength of the
>> Gorilla will come out on the wrapping position.
>> Without the _ neck vertebrae _, it should mostly depend on the
>> strength of legs wrapping objects and the strength of head
>> attached to the tripod.
>>
> So it would seem. I haven't tested the wrapping thing with the big
> one.
> I wasn't terribly impressed with wrapping the little one, but it
> has the
> neck.
>> Anyway, I only plan to mount it with E330 and 14-42 which is about
>> 1/3 of its weight spec.
>>
> Should be fine.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:03:57 -0500
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
>
> I shoot raw these days about 98% of the time but there was also a time
> that I didn't so I do have images that are JPEG only. I've also been
> caught a couple of times running out of card space (not recently) and
> was forced to switch to JPEG to finish shooting.
>
> I find ACR useful for a JPEG because I prefer the ACR interface for
> exposure and color balance adjustments. I rarely do anything
> precise on
> white balance... my Whi-Bal is usually relegated to a pocket in the
> camera bag. My white balance is correct when it pleases my eye.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Moose wrote:
>
>>> Since I have PhotoShop CS3 I also have Bridge. But for what Bridge
>>> does I much prefer Breeze Browser. But, AFAIK, Breeze Browser
>>> won't allow me to open a JPEG in ACR so I'm forced to use Bridge
>>> from time to time.
>>>
>> Yeah, I use FastStone, which is much like BB for that purpose, but
>> also need bridge to open a JPEG in ACR. I'm not sure I see much
>> advantage in that, though.
>>
>> How do you find processing a JPEG in ACR useful? It's nice to be able
>> to slide the WB slider, but without any absolute K settings, not that
>> big a deal so far. I'm probably missing something.
>>
>> Moose
>>
>> ============================================== List usage info:
>> http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies:
>> olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: OT: in the UK, who is responsible for goods
> damaged in transi
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:10:11 -0500
>
>
> I wonder if this is one of the up sides of having Republicans run
> things for so long. I could be wrong, but I also could swear that
> many, many moons ago, the IRS didn't seem to care much about return
> on its time, but rather catching people doing wrong stuff, and they
> made little guys hurt real bad whether they deserved it or not. Then,
> oh, about 1980 or so <g>, this whole return on investment thing
> caught fire. <wink>
>
> But, like I said, it was a long time ago. I recall many of my
> father's rants about the IRS, as he did a lot of tax and estate work,
> and his opinion of the government back in the 60s and 70s was not
> very high.
>
> --Bob Whitmire
> www.bwp33.com
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Moose wrote:
>
>> Agents and offices are
>> rated much like businesses, on return. Spending time beating
>> taxpayers
>> up over little things that can't, by their nature, return much
>> additional tax revenue for the time spent, just results in poor
>> performance reviews and lack of promotion.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:29:04 -0800
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
>
> Bernard Frangoulis wrote:
>> Quoting Moose (24/02/08):
>>
>>> On balance, I think the Ultrapod may be the better product. Less
>>> flexible on an uneven surface and quirkier to aim and lock, but
>>> not subject to collapsing under weight. On the other hand, it's
>>> base is smaller, so it would be easier to knock over with a large
>>> camera and lens on it. It's closer in size to the medium gorilla.
>>> Maybe a larger, #3 size Ultrapod will show up one day.
>>>
>>
>> I was thinking that the Gorillapod was noticeably larger and
>> stronger than the Ultrapod. Is it not the case? I have used an
>> Ultrapod with my OM-4 plus 35-105 zoom, and it was OK, although
>> the head was flimsy. I have never even seen a Gorillapod (except
>> on pictures). How would you compare them ?
>>
> I thought I just did. :-)
>
> The large gorillapod is generally larger, heavier and apparently
> sturdier than the Ultrapod II. In my case, with only 60% of the stated
> capacity, a leg joint which seemed stable when I set it down
> started to
> creep under the load. The leg was bent, but I thought that was the
> whole
> point of the gorillapod.
>
> The Ultrapod is smaller, lighter, cheaper and safely holds the same
> load
> without complaint. The ball head is fussier than the separate one I
> mounted on the Gorillapod, but does the job, allowing relatively easy
> two hand positioning and locking and holding firm.
>
> Resistance to tipping is a mixed bag. With the lens lined up over the
> big leg, the Ultra is low enough to be quite stable. With ball
> head, the
> Gorilla is not stable unless the legs are spread pretty far apart.
> That's fine on a rug. On a table top, with less friction, one of the
> legs gently bent/slid down so the lens almost hit the table.
> Unimpressive.
>
> When tweaked, they (Gorilla with head) have similar vibratory
> movements
> and settle down about equally quickly. Either one should be steady
> with
> a shutter delay or remote.
>
> Having now played with both side by side for a bit, which I had never
> done before, I have to say that I prefer the Ultrapod II overall.
>> These days, my small tripod of choice (with the E-1 or the D200)
>> is an old Leica table tripod (which I got for cheap on *Bay), with
>> a small RRS BH-25 tripod head. Not much bigger than the ultrapod,
>> and inspires more confidence... Very stable.
>>
> I have never managed to pick up one of those. They look very nice. The
> Ultrapod has the weight and strap advantage.
>
> I'm thinking more and more that a slightly larger Ultrapod III with
> head
> attachment platform on top of the legs in place of the little "eye"
> might be better than them all.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:03:08 +0000
> From: Donald <d1956m198d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
>
> Moose wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I use FastStone, which is much like BB for that purpose, but
>> also
>> need bridge to open a JPEG in ACR. I'm not sure I see much
>> advantage in
>> that, though.
>>
>>
>
> I use Lightroom as my RAW processor, you can get surprisingly far with
> it on its own. But for local enhancements (like the one you did on one
> of my Corsica images) I default to PS, or for anything complex that
> might require layers. I really like Lightroom, but being a Windows
> man I
> have no option on Aperture; its initial incarnation would have sucked
> all the processing power out of this machine, anyway.
>
> If I need a look at a lot of images fast, Faststone for sure. I
> never do
> anything else with it, just scroll through loads of images. It's
> quicker
> and more convenient than either Bridge or Lightroom for that.
>
> D.
>
>
> --
> Donald MacDonald BA DipLIS
>
>
> Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
> I took the one less travelled by,
> And that has made all the difference.
>
> Robert Frost.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:02:24 -0700
> From: Dan Mitchell <danmitchell@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
>
> Moose wrote:
>> As another inveterate searcher for the perfect travel tripod, I also
>> have one. I took it to the US NE last year.
>> [...]
>> The alternative compact tripod I also rather like is the Ultrapod II.
>
> I've got the 'medium' gorillapod and an ultrapod II, and they're
> good
> for different things.
>
> The gorillapod is handy if you're hiking and want to wrap it to a
> tree, or a bench, or a railing or whatever -- but if you're hanging
> things sideways then the weight will be more likely to flex it.
>
> The ultrapod has a tiny ballhead on top, which is not strong
> enough to
> hold a very heavy lens, but when it _does_ work it's rigid, because
> the
> base has no flex, it's all in the head. It also has a velcro strap
> which
> you can use to wrap around (relatively smooth) vertical surfaces in a
> pinch, it'll work fine on lampposts, not so well on trees or anything
> that's too large.
>
> Downside of the ultrapod is that you only have so much room to
> raise/lower the angle, and if the lens is too long the whole thing can
> overbalance.
>
> Summary: both are better than nothing, but personally for travel
> tripods, I like this one:
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/147126-REG/
> Slik_611_465_Compact_Tripod_XL.html
>
> It's not very solid, so you probably still want self-timer to avoid
> shake, it takes a while to set up, but it _is_ a real tripod which you
> can use on very uneven surfaces, and it's small enough to fit into a
> backpack or hang on the outside of a smaller pack, it weighs very
> little, it's cheap, and the one I have has lasted surprisingly well.
>
> -- dan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:58:31 -0800 (PST)
> From: Ali Shah <alizookoman@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: How good is that 35-100/F2?
>
>
> Richard,
>
> Apparently I dont have permission to view the photo!?!
>
> I receive the following msg:
>
> You don't have permission to access
> /photopost/data/3268/32230964.jpg on this server.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> --- Richard Man <richard-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I shot the SF Coronation tonight, that F2 and in
>> body stabilization is a
>> godsend:
>>
> http://www.dragonsgate.net/photopost/data/3268/32230964.jpg
>>
>> [1]Also, Michael Johnston used one of my photo for
>> his blog on sensor size:
>>
> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/
> 2008/02/sens
>> or-sizes-pa.html[2]
>>
>> That's my 5 seconds of fame.
>>
>>
>> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To
>> reach me directly, please
>> userichard at imagecraft.com)
>>
>> --- Links ---
>> 1
>>
> http://www.dragonsgate.net/photopost/data/3268/32230964.jpg
>> 2
>>
> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/
> 2008/02/sensor-sizes-pa.html
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://
> mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:02:19 -0800
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
>
> Dan Mitchell wrote:
>> Moose wrote:
>>
>>> The alternative compact tripod I also rather like is the Ultrapod
>>> II.
>>>
>>
>> I've got the 'medium' gorillapod and an ultrapod II, and they're
>> good for different things.
>>
>> The gorillapod is handy if you're hiking and want to wrap it to a
>> tree, or a bench, or a railing or whatever -- but if you're
>> hanging things sideways then the weight will be more likely to
>> flex it.
>>
>> The ultrapod has a tiny ballhead on top, which is not strong
>> enough to hold a very heavy lens,
> You're the second to say that. What are people using on it,
> 80-200/2.8s?
>> but when it _does_ work it's rigid, because the base has no flex,
>> it's all in the head. It also has a velcro strap which you can use
>> to wrap around (relatively smooth) vertical surfaces in a pinch,
>> it'll work fine on lampposts, not so well on trees or anything
>> that's too large.
>>
> Neither will the Gorilla fit large things.
>> Downside of the ultrapod is that you only have so much room to
>> raise/lower the angle, and if the lens is too long the whole thing
>> can overbalance.
>>
> Perhaps s is simply balanced, with a strong enough ball head to
> hold any
> lens that is appropriate for the leg circle diameter.
>> Summary: both are better than nothing,
> Yup. The Gorilla looks way cooler. As in my later post, I still think
> the Ultra is better in the end - and WAY better value
>> but personally for travel tripods, I like this one:
>>
>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/147126-REG/
>> Slik_611_465_Compact_Tripod_XL.html
>>
>> It's not very solid, so you probably still want self-timer to
>> avoid shake, it takes a while to set up, but it _is_ a real tripod
>> which you can use on very uneven surfaces, and it's small enough
>> to fit into a backpack or hang on the outside of a smaller pack,
>> it weighs very little, it's cheap, and the one I have has lasted
>> surprisingly well.
>>
> That's getting into a different category. I tend to travel with both
> something Ultrapod size and something this size. The one I have
> weights
> a little less, extends a little bit higher and has a ball head,
> which I
> prefer in a traveler like this. BUT - MOST OF ALL - it has flip
> lock legs.
>
> I'll put up with twist lock legs, barely, on my larger, CF tripod, if
> only because that's all that was available and that also worked at the
> time. In a travel tripod, no way. I can have mine set up with camera
> mounted and ready to shoot in about 30 seconds. And...it's
> impossible to
> over tighten a lock.. At the moment, I have the larger Velbon 343 head
> on it and the smaller one it came with on the Gorilla.
>
> Of course, it's no longer made, but still on Amazon to look at.
> <http://www.amazon.com/VELBON-343E-Lightweight-Photographic-Tripod/
> dp/tech-data/B00006HOO1/ref=de_a_smtd>
> The new version has some sort of "one twist for all leg sections"
> design
> which I haven't tried
> <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00020H3H6/
> ref=dp_cp_ob_title_0/105-8122907-8844447>.
>
> I prefer holding the camera with moderate downward pressure to
> freestanding with a light tripod. That tends to damp the vibration in
> light, aluminum legs.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:37:39 -0800
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: How good is that 35-100/F2?
>
> Ali Shah wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> Apparently I dont have permission to view the photo!?!
>>
> Oh, Ali! Have you been a bad boy, and been grounded? :-D
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:00:31 -0800
> From: Richard Man <richard-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: How good is that 35-100/F2?
>
> Try copy and paste the URL directly in a browser windows instead of
> clicking on it. That should help.
>
> Sorry.
>
> At 04:58 PM 2/24/2008, Ali Shah wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Apparently I dont have permission to view the photo!?!
>>
>> I receive the following msg:
>>
>> You don't have permission to access
>> /photopost/data/3268/32230964.jpg on this server.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Richard Man <richard-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I shot the SF Coronation tonight, that F2 and in
>>> body stabilization is a
>>> godsend:
>>>
>> http://www.dragonsgate.net/photopost/data/3268/32230964.jpg
>>>
>
> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly,
> please use richard at imagecraft.com)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:01:34 -0500
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Yesterday's Lunar Eclipse
>
> Yes, the E-type had inboard discs which was the reason the entire
> differential and suspension system were enclosed in a steel cage. The
> downside was that doing any brake work beyond just changing pads (such
> as turning the discs) required dropping the entire rear suspension out
> of the car. The cage was bolted to the monocoque body with four
> rubber/steel mounts rather like engine mounts (two pieces of steel
> with
> a rubber block bonded between). On my car 2-1/2 of the mounts came
> apart whilst I was running down my twisting mountain road to work one
> morning. There wasn't much left holding things in place.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Paul Braun wrote:
>> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>> The Prince of Darkness played havoc with my Sunbeam Alpine (what
>>> I drove
>>> before the XKE) but I drove the XKE to work everyday for about 4
>>> years
>>> and it never failed to startup and get me there... until the day the
>>> rear suspension cage nearly fell out of the car on a winding
>>> mountain
>>> road. But that's a long, ugly story.
>>>
>> Ouch!
>>
>> I'm trying to remember -- did the XKE have inboard brake discs
>> like the
>> XJ6, or was that a later development?
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:16:45 -0500
> From: usher99@xxxxxxx
>
>
> Yes, I have the ultra maxi with twist lock legs for travel.? It can
> handle the Tam 80-200 in light wind and packs well.? I can have it
> set up in under 25 seconds, though the most annoying shrinking leg
> syndrome not infrequently will strike.? Not sure why I put up with
> it.?
> Mike
>
>
> Moose says:
> That's getting into a different category. I tend to travel with both
> something Ultrapod size and something this size. The one I have
> weights
> a little less, extends a little bit higher and has a ball head,
> which I
> prefer in a traveler like this. BUT - MOST OF ALL - it has flip
> lock legs.
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> __
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://
> webmail.aol.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:31:09 -0700
> From: Dan Mitchell <danmitchell@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: gorillapod slr zoom
>
>>> The ultrapod has a tiny ballhead on top, which is not strong
>>> enough to hold a very heavy lens,
>> You're the second to say that. What are people using on it,
>> 80-200/2.8s?
>
> It's not so much weight as torque that's the problem -- all the
> weight
> is off to one side so it's more prone to moving than I liked. (sorry,
> now I'm looking for it, I can't find the blooming thing so I can't
> test
> for sure, but I think the 65-200 on an OM body was too much, for
> instance).
>
> I was just poking around tripod/head manufacturers, and here's a
> _really_ alternative approach to a compact tripod:
>
> http://www.kirkphoto.com/MightyLowBoy.html
>
> -- dan
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of olympus Digest V5 #55
> ****************************
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
