Absolutely correct :thumbup:

And here's the real "...fascinating history of the $1 bill – " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_one-dollar_bill if anyone's actually interested.

I group them by size and use the screw on end caps; then store the whole lot in a couple of nifty router bit storage cases I bought from Woodworker’s Supply, Inc. http://woodworker.com/small-router-bit-storage-box-mssu-116-741.asp?search=router bit storage&searchmode=2

I suspect there’s a bit of Felix Unger in many of us, myself included, when it comes to flecks of dust inside lenses. They are annoying, no two ways about it. :)

But to the best of my knowledge they are harmless to the lens and unless they have some noticeable effect on image quality -- highly unlikely -- it’s best to just live with them. (“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”)

Came across the same post, with some minor word changes, just the other day at: http://www.blogster.com/feralpuppies/this-is-a-snot-nose-twerp-who-has-never-accomplished-anything

(What a coincidence. Must be that great minds just think alike, eh Sarge?)

But anyway, in the interest of fairness, here’s a different take on some parallels between North Korea and the American political scene: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/26/1124300/-Willard-Jong-un

If all that’s bothersome is the slight tilt to the steeple, one down-and-dirty fix is to:

(1) In CS5, use the Marquee Tool to make a make a close selection of the steeple;

(2) Go up to EDIT and do “copy,” then EDIT “paste;”

(3) Now you can use the Move Tool (with “Show Transform Controls” checked) and simply tilt the upper left corner of the selection to the left until the steeple is vertical. (It helps to have the grid enabled.)

The advantage here over “global” transformations is that you can retain the original composition. No need for additional cropping or “in-filling" (or "planning ahead" for that matter).

Regarding polygraph testing, a Google search: “lie detector test reliability” yielded 70,000 hits. Here are the first two, one from legal/law enforcement perspective http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lie-detector-tests-tell-truth-29637.html ,and one as a general overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph .

Read them, or any of the other 69,988 and make up your minds for yourselves.

Found this on the "Property Room" auction site
http://www.propertyroom.com/l/antique-1908-folding-pocket-kodak-camera/8296109 Camera is identified as a 1908 Kodak No. 1A Special Model "D." Looks identical to yours (note the center badge especially). See also the description below.

Sounds to me like the eye cup itself is the culprit. Try removing it and see if the view is still round. If so, then, I'm stymied like the rest.

Yes.

Without knowing the specifics, namely, what output size you scanned them to originally and what final size you have in mind; my suggestion would be to simply re-scan, at, say, 300dpi but this time at an output size whose linear dimensions (e.g. 11x17in. or whatever) approximate the desired end.

In my own experience (using a V600) I’ve found that this is by far the easiest and most satisfactory way to deal with an “up-sizing” situation like this.

Hard to answer you question precisely. Vivitar is a 3rd-Party manufacturer that builds numerous "macro lenses" in various camera mounts.

If you're referring to one with an older Olympus OM (film camera) mount, the answer is "yes" (see the excerpt from the official Olympus site below).

If you're referring to one with some other style of lens mount, then the answer is "maybe." A quick search on eBay indicates that mount adapters for the EVOLT body are available for at least: Nikon, Pentax, Leica "R" and T-mount lenses.

Generally attributed to an interesting Brit named John Wilkes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes ), one of the two men, the other being Isaac Barre, after whom the city in Pennsylvania is named.

No thanks, Mitt. I don't need your 10,000 bucks :)

Obviously, in your specific example, if a driver's face was totally obscured by clouds, sun glare, or whatever; then indeed it might be quite impossible to remedy in PP. And I said as much by noting that success depends greatly on the amount of underlying detail that is recoverable.

My objection was to the flat, unqualified assertion that reduction of (or correction for) "sky reflections" cannot be done, presumably under any circumstances. That, I maintain, is just not true.

In any event, this particular subject might be interesting to explore in a thread of its own. I think, however, it's a bit off topic here.

Regards,

To state unequivocally that "...reduction of reflections ... cannot be done later." is simply incorrect. One has to know how to do it, of course; and results are, in the main, dependant on the amount of underlying detail that can be salvaged. (The problem is similar to that of dealing with lens flare as was discussed in an earlier thread http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-43381-1.html )

What is true is that it makes a heck of a lot more sense to attempt to obviate this tedious post procedure by using a polarizer in the first place.

By all means, watch the "teaser" and follow-up commentary by Mr. D'Souza (BA, English Literature, Dartmouth College, 1983).

You Conservatives, particularly, should pay heed since he makes no bones about the fact that his movie is intended specifically to provide you with invaluable debating tools in the crusade to defeat Mr. Obama in the November elections.

But for those who may not know, Mr. D'Souza has already given us the benefits of his insightful analysis of Mr. Obama's character and "Agenda" in a book titled: The Roots of Obama's Rage (Regnery, 2010). What's interesting is that Mr. D'Souza's own synopsis of his book http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705485.html is pretty much the same as his discussion of the content of his upcoming extravaganza.

So why the need for a movie as well?

I suppose there could be many reasons but the most likely, to me, at least, is he's trying to "cover all the bases;" to reach that not insubstantial number in the Conservative fold for whom written words, not to mention attention span, have always posed challenges. Hell, what better way to be sure these valuable (vote-wise) cohorts get the message than via a slick flick.

For non-zealots and other thoughtful types, you can read a review of Mr. D'Souza's book (and daffy ideas) by Andrew Ferguson at http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/roots-lunacy_508809.html