aeon

"The study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women ages 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four priming doses of ALVAC and two boost doses of AIDSVAX over six months. The other half received dummy shots. No one knew who got what until the study ended.

All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.

Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.

The results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots--a 31% lower risk of infection for the vaccinated group."

is that reliable? even if all 16000 had sex with the same infected person you would get random results...

Canon 40d 79mm, F4.5 1/400 ISO200

I wish to His Majesty a quick recovery

I'm thinking about buying a Manfrotto Modosteady 585 anyone know where I can get one? I'll also be traveling to Japan in a few months, any thoughts on if it would be cheaper in Japan? Canon being a Japanese company and all.

You can find it at foto thailand, 2nd floor at mbk, when I bought my manfrotto tripod I think I saw the modosteady available there.

Manfrotto I think is an italian brand so the price in japan could depends on taxes, I suggest you to buy it in hong kong for the same reason.

"a broken rule"

Canon 40D, 90mm F4.5 1/125 ISO1600

I think is the right thing to do, PM Abhisit should invite him to come in thailand to consult with him to make a better country starting from quality standard of living in thai jails.

resolution is less than 5d but it has the same video in hd feature (24/25/30 fps) and sd at 60 fps

not bad for the price, is an in between the 5d and the 50d

P.S. Qus? What should we do if there is no outright winner by the closing time?

then I suggest to award in alphabetic order

was the hdr capture technique and tone mapping created to display a dynamic range much closer to human eye perception on 8 bit displays? not to be offensive experimenting is always good, and everyone is free to create the images he likes, but I think many here are missing that point.

Hi 'aeon',

Please could you explain your comment

but I think many here are missing that point.

I would like to learn more about HDR without reading too much

If possible, please, could you use the K.I.S.S. principle (Keep It Simple S.......) an old DOS saying btw

I am keen to learn more and more.

Thanking you.

Yours truly,

Kan Win

try to evaluate the way you perceive light with your own eyes and compare to many (it doesn't mean all) of the photos posted here and you will understand what I mean, don't need to teach or read, just evaluate with your own eyes.

Or maybe my eyes are wrong, because I am able to see dynamic contrast. I saw many photos here having white becoming gray and shadows becoming gray too, including a lot of dark halo around objects.

By the way there are some very good example on your bridge photo and the last fabianfred photo, these example for me are far much closer to what my eyes can perceive more than a traditional photo.

was the hdr capture technique and tone mapping created to display a dynamic range much closer to human eye perception on 8 bit displays? not to be offensive experimenting is always good, and everyone is free to create the images he likes, but I think many here are missing that point.

Hi Chinavet, I am interested in selling my Canon 40d body only (or combined with a Canon EF 17/85 mm with Image Stabilizer) if you are interested in second hand, everything is in perfect conditions.

From what I read the industry still uses film because of the enormous cost they face moving across totally to digital.

If this cost is in direct relation to using MFD in "our" world who can blame them eh?

I seem also to recollect that is why the "Red" group set themselves up. They seem to be seeking to encourage the switch to Movie Digital.

Red.Com

Yes I agree, but there is also more than that, consider also big names that are not into digital to slow down the switch.

I don't think digital capture is the ideal world at this moment, still has some negative side but compared to the advantages I think is quite convenient.

Of course more customers, more new R&D so better solutions.

I am a new Red camera user, and also worked few times using the red workflow, and I advocate for them! ( the name and color used by this brand is not related to the current political situation in thailand )

From what I read the industry still uses film because of the enormous cost they face moving across totally to digital.

If this cost is in direct relation to using MFD in "our" world who can blame them eh?

I seem also to recollect that is why the "Red" group set themselves up. They seem to be seeking to encourage the switch to Movie Digital.

Red.Com

Yes I agree, but there is also more than that, consider also big names that are not into digital to slow down the switch.

I don't think digital capture is the ideal world at this moment, still has some negative side but compared to the advantages I think is quite convenient.

Of course more customers, more new R&D so better solutions.

I am a new Red camera user, and also worked few times using the red workflow, and I advocate for them!

Most new film now are filmed digital anyway with full 3 * 35 mm sensors, extremely dear stuff but makes sense. Why they digitized the films was so they could work on them, you know fx and stuff which is 1000000000 times easier to do digital than the old way. However since a load of cinemas are unable to show digital on the big screen they simply transfer the final edit into film and show it in those theaters. You do see the difference believe me from a full digital show on the big screen versus the burnt to film again, the lack of additional process makes it much clear in colors and sharper, which is logical, as more times we add processes like, subject to film, film to digital, digital to film decreases IQ as you inherit the bad sides form all media that way.

For me the; I shoot film because it's "whatever" then I scan it makes just no sense whatsoever. But whatever makes you happy I guess.

Not most, but still few are captured (not filmed) on 35mm digital sensors camera, and I add unfortunately.

I know exactly why films are scanned and transfered into digital images (I work on this field) but is not easier to do digital, something is easier something more difficult, something impossible to do without digital techniques, but my question (rhetorical) was referred to why still filming and not capturing, and why still cinema are not able everywhere to project digital.

On that I agree, projecting digital it keep more quality because avoid the recording on film, and then making copies.

500$ sounds more affordable as hobby, or stitch together as many photos as you need and you will get high res panorama, more slower process but far more affordable

Nice use of bevel and emboss but how does this relate to Thailand per the challenge rules?

Here's my first:

H2O

Larger version

thumb for exif info:

bevel and emboss??? are you joking?

edit: wrong digit, it is 160 mega pixel

Corrected it.

Impressive piece of hardware. Bit daunting on disk space though > File sizes raw (16-bit): 307 MB, tiff (48-bit): 922 MB. 1000 Photos and you've pretty much filled up that Terabyte drive.

thanks for the edit.

Yes it is, I would handle to save and transfer those huge files, but I can't handle that price for an hobby.

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/...8/d925/f934.cfm

edit: wrong digit, it is 160 mega pixel

The forum is very interesting too, but seems more a scanners discussion,

Isn't it ironic that the people who advocate film are scanning it to digital................

well is common when new technologies come in, it never happen a sudden radical switch, it takes time to switch.

Consider investments from big companies as number 1 factor on these delays in changing, and lobbies looking for economic interests for their elite of big names as another cause.

In the meanwhile the most clever come out with in between solutions that maximize the know how and resources that already exist to easily move into the new solutions.

Look at cinema for example, filmed then scanned and all the work in between the input and output is done digitally until the final is converted to film again, what is the advantage of this? or better who takes advantage of this?

I mean other models/brands with that resolution

no way, in 2 years or so you will get that resolution for 1/10 of the price, and you will use the lenses you use now (I hope so)

I agree in full, he is very good photographer and very creative, I love his works!

The forum is very interesting too, but seems more a scanners discussion, more than a digital vs film.

By the way I think is really important to use an highend scanner to get the most of the "lower dynamic range than digital" from film negatives.

thanks for the link, very inspiring works.

oh just noticed now that could be a difference between cs3 and cs4 (I checked on the last one).

Try this: when open a new file, select the jpg file and before open it change the option dialog you have on the left bottom of the same window, from camera raw to jpg (I think there should be that dialog on cs3 too)

the button is the third last on top, you can access it also by shortcut with command K, once opened the camera raw settings window, in the lower part (jpgs and tiff handling) set "Automatically open jpegs with settings". The next time your jpegs will not open up on camera raw window. You can access that settings also from photoshop/preferences/camera raw.

If you open the file from file/open recent, it will open in the same way as you opened it the last time, so I suggest you after changing the settings load the file from file/open for the first time.

With that color settings your file will keep for printing the same color profile that your file has enbedded (in your case adobe rgb).