Why are my D3 NEF files SMALLER than my D2X?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John Smith, Jan 1, 2008.

  1. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.

    I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX format, ISO 200, 14 bit
    RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.

    Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my D2X that are 19-20mb
    each.

    Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in a D3?

    I want to make sure I'm getting maximum quality out of my D3.

    BTW, I am simply thrilled and stunned with this D3's features, performance
    and everything else about it!

    TIA---

    John
    John Smith, Jan 1, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John Smith wrote:

    > I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.
    >
    > I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX format, ISO 200, 14
    > bit RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.
    >
    > Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my D2X that are
    > 19-20mb each.
    >
    > Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in a D3?


    Nikon is simply using better streamlining techniques to make the file as
    efficient as possible. Their lossless compression scheme is also better.
    The D3's default setting is set at "lossless compression."

    > I want to make sure I'm getting maximum quality out of my D3.


    You will. Don't worry about what the file size is, worry about if the RAW
    file is efficient or not. The D3 is so good you can shoot lossless RAW or
    not and you aren't going to be able to tell the difference.

    > BTW, I am simply thrilled and stunned with this D3's features,
    > performance and everything else about it!


    Yep, same here. Its performance and build quality is stunningly Nikon. My
    first impression is the camera is severely under priced for what it gives
    back.





    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 1, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "John Smith" <> wrote:
    >I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.
    >
    >I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX format, ISO 200, 14 bit
    >RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.
    >
    >Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my D2X that are 19-20mb
    >each.


    The D2x has two modes for saving raw data with NEF
    files. Both are 12 bit files, but one uses a look up
    table to compress the data by reducing the total number
    of values from 4096 down to less than 700. Using the
    compressed format results in 9-14Mb files rather than
    the 19-21Mb files of the uncompressed mode.

    Unfortunately the compression is lossy, though only
    slightly so and only in the highlights (where it usually
    is not important).

    >Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in a D3?


    I haven't seen anything yet that gives the exact details
    on what the D3 and D300 NEF files use, though it very
    clearly is available (granted, I haven't even tried to
    find out what it is).

    As you will note on Page 68 of the D3 manual, in
    addition to switching between 12 bit or 14 bit data, the
    D3 has two compression formats, as well as the
    uncompressed format.

    Here is a chart showing file sizes that I got for the
    different format with one particular image:

    12 bit 14 bit

    Compression 12.0 Mb 15.1 Mb
    Lossless Compression 12.8 Mb 15.9 Mb
    Uncompressed 19.6 Mb 25.0 Mb

    First, you'll notice that 12 bit uncompressed NEF is
    just about the same as with the D2x uncompressed NEF.

    Next you'll note that 14 bit files are indeed
    significantly larger. And it appears that, at least for
    this particular image, the lossless compression is
    almost as good as the lossy compression.

    I didn't take a similar image with the D2x, so I can't
    compare the compression between that and the D3. I've
    seen the D2x (lossy) compression generate files from 8Mb
    to 13 Mb, so the above is within that same range.

    >I want to make sure I'm getting maximum quality out of my D3.


    Go to the "Shooting Menu", the scroll it down almost
    half way, to the "NEF (RAW) recording" item. That gives
    you two selections.

    The top selection is "Type", go there and select
    "Uncompressed" or "Lossless compressed". Probably
    "Uncompressed" is the best choice, given that we aren't
    really sure what "Lossless compressed" actually is. I
    would _not_ advise selecting "Compressed" until you are
    aware of exactly what it does.

    The bottom selection is "NEF (RAW) bit depth", and there
    you can pick 12 or 14 bits. I'd recommend 14 for
    absolute best performance.

    Just be advised that you'll need a *lot* of disk space!

    You can use only half the disk space by using 12 bit and
    the lossless compression, but you'll also have less
    performance. I'm not sure what "Lossless compression"
    does, but the regular compressed format will lose fine
    detail in the upper two zones. That would be important
    for white wedding dresses, bright flowers, and that sort
    of object. The difference between 12 bit and 14 bit
    files is probably about 1 zone worth of dynamic range
    added to the the low end, though in theory it would be 2
    fstops, and in fact at higher ISO settings it probably
    is less than 1 fstop (due to noise).

    >BTW, I am simply thrilled and stunned with this D3's features, performance
    >and everything else about it!


    In the last three weeks I've shot only a few images that
    a D2x is able to get (tonight I got some fireworks, and
    that probably would not have been much different, for
    example). But this week I've been shooting local
    "Arctic Games", which are traditional Eskimo indoor
    sporting events, at a location with poor lighting where
    I've just never been able to get good available light
    images before. I'm shooting at ISO 3200 and 6400, which
    provides the ability to adjust shutter speeds up or down
    depending on how much motion blur is desired.

    It's astounding...

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 1, 2008
    #3
  4. Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >John Smith wrote:
    >
    >> I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.
    >>
    >> I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX format, ISO 200, 14
    >> bit RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.
    >>
    >> Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my D2X that are
    >> 19-20mb each.
    >>
    >> Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in a D3?

    >
    >Nikon is simply using better streamlining techniques to make the file as
    >efficient as possible. Their lossless compression scheme is also better.
    >The D3's default setting is set at "lossless compression."


    None of the above appears to be true. It's simply "Rita" trolling.

    >> I want to make sure I'm getting maximum quality out of my D3.

    >
    >You will.


    You apparently aren't, and "Rita" wouldn't know, or care.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 1, 2008
    #4
  5. John Smith

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jan 1, 6:20 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >
    > Yep, same here.  Its performance and build quality is stunningly Nikon.  My
    > first impression is the camera is severely under priced for what it gives
    > back.
    >
    > Rita



    Speaking of giving back, when does your current rental period expire?

    On a related note, I notice that rentglass.com is now renting DSLR
    bodies as well as lenses. So far they offer the D300 for Nikon and
    the 5D and the 40D for Canon.
    So maybe I'll get the 5D or a week and put it through its paces.
    Annika1980, Jan 1, 2008
    #5
  6. John Smith

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2008-01-01 00:58:56 -0800, "John Smith" <> said:

    > I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.
    >
    > I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX format, ISO 200, 14 bit
    > RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.
    >
    > Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my D2X that are 19-20mb
    > each.
    >
    > Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in a D3?
    >
    > I want to make sure I'm getting maximum quality out of my D3.
    >
    > BTW, I am simply thrilled and stunned with this D3's features, performance
    > and everything else about it!
    >
    > TIA---
    >
    > John


    One big reason is that the D3 has fewer pixels than the D2x. However,
    the file compression may be set differently on the D3 than it was on
    the D2x as well.
    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
    C J Campbell, Jan 1, 2008
    #6
  7. John Smith

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2008-01-01 05:38:47 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

    > Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >> John Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.
    >>>
    >>> I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX format, ISO 200, 14
    >>> bit RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.
    >>>
    >>> Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my D2X that are
    >>> 19-20mb each.
    >>>
    >>> Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in a D3?

    >>
    >> Nikon is simply using better streamlining techniques to make the file as
    >> efficient as possible. Their lossless compression scheme is also better.
    >> The D3's default setting is set at "lossless compression."

    >
    > None of the above appears to be true. It's simply "Rita" trolling.


    Actually, Rita is correct on all counts.



    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
    C J Campbell, Jan 1, 2008
    #7
  8. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    Floyd,

    Thanks kindly. This is exactly the information I was looking for I
    appreciate your help very much.

    Enjoy your D3. I absolutely love mine!

    John




    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "John Smith" <> wrote:
    >>I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.
    >>
    >>I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX format, ISO 200, 14 bit
    >>RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.
    >>
    >>Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my D2X that are 19-20mb
    >>each.

    >
    > The D2x has two modes for saving raw data with NEF
    > files. Both are 12 bit files, but one uses a look up
    > table to compress the data by reducing the total number
    > of values from 4096 down to less than 700. Using the
    > compressed format results in 9-14Mb files rather than
    > the 19-21Mb files of the uncompressed mode.
    >
    > Unfortunately the compression is lossy, though only
    > slightly so and only in the highlights (where it usually
    > is not important).
    >
    >>Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in a D3?

    >
    > I haven't seen anything yet that gives the exact details
    > on what the D3 and D300 NEF files use, though it very
    > clearly is available (granted, I haven't even tried to
    > find out what it is).
    >
    > As you will note on Page 68 of the D3 manual, in
    > addition to switching between 12 bit or 14 bit data, the
    > D3 has two compression formats, as well as the
    > uncompressed format.
    >
    > Here is a chart showing file sizes that I got for the
    > different format with one particular image:
    >
    > 12 bit 14 bit
    >
    > Compression 12.0 Mb 15.1 Mb
    > Lossless Compression 12.8 Mb 15.9 Mb
    > Uncompressed 19.6 Mb 25.0 Mb
    >
    > First, you'll notice that 12 bit uncompressed NEF is
    > just about the same as with the D2x uncompressed NEF.
    >
    > Next you'll note that 14 bit files are indeed
    > significantly larger. And it appears that, at least for
    > this particular image, the lossless compression is
    > almost as good as the lossy compression.
    >
    > I didn't take a similar image with the D2x, so I can't
    > compare the compression between that and the D3. I've
    > seen the D2x (lossy) compression generate files from 8Mb
    > to 13 Mb, so the above is within that same range.
    >
    >>I want to make sure I'm getting maximum quality out of my D3.

    >
    > Go to the "Shooting Menu", the scroll it down almost
    > half way, to the "NEF (RAW) recording" item. That gives
    > you two selections.
    >
    > The top selection is "Type", go there and select
    > "Uncompressed" or "Lossless compressed". Probably
    > "Uncompressed" is the best choice, given that we aren't
    > really sure what "Lossless compressed" actually is. I
    > would _not_ advise selecting "Compressed" until you are
    > aware of exactly what it does.
    >
    > The bottom selection is "NEF (RAW) bit depth", and there
    > you can pick 12 or 14 bits. I'd recommend 14 for
    > absolute best performance.
    >
    > Just be advised that you'll need a *lot* of disk space!
    >
    > You can use only half the disk space by using 12 bit and
    > the lossless compression, but you'll also have less
    > performance. I'm not sure what "Lossless compression"
    > does, but the regular compressed format will lose fine
    > detail in the upper two zones. That would be important
    > for white wedding dresses, bright flowers, and that sort
    > of object. The difference between 12 bit and 14 bit
    > files is probably about 1 zone worth of dynamic range
    > added to the the low end, though in theory it would be 2
    > fstops, and in fact at higher ISO settings it probably
    > is less than 1 fstop (due to noise).
    >
    >>BTW, I am simply thrilled and stunned with this D3's features, performance
    >>and everything else about it!

    >
    > In the last three weeks I've shot only a few images that
    > a D2x is able to get (tonight I got some fireworks, and
    > that probably would not have been much different, for
    > example). But this week I've been shooting local
    > "Arctic Games", which are traditional Eskimo indoor
    > sporting events, at a location with poor lighting where
    > I've just never been able to get good available light
    > images before. I'm shooting at ISO 3200 and 6400, which
    > provides the ability to adjust shutter speeds up or down
    > depending on how much motion blur is desired.
    >
    > It's astounding...
    >
    > --
    > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    John Smith, Jan 1, 2008
    #8
  9. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    I pay less attention to "Rita" (whoever he is) that I do to Paris Hilton
    (which is zero).

    John


    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >>John Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.
    >>>
    >>> I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX format, ISO 200, 14
    >>> bit RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.
    >>>
    >>> Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my D2X that are
    >>> 19-20mb each.
    >>>
    >>> Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in a D3?

    >>
    >>Nikon is simply using better streamlining techniques to make the file as
    >>efficient as possible. Their lossless compression scheme is also better.
    >>The D3's default setting is set at "lossless compression."

    >
    > None of the above appears to be true. It's simply "Rita" trolling.
    >
    >>> I want to make sure I'm getting maximum quality out of my D3.

    >>
    >>You will.

    >
    > You apparently aren't, and "Rita" wouldn't know, or care.
    >
    > --
    > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    John Smith, Jan 1, 2008
    #9
  10. John Smith wrote:
    > I pay less attention to "Rita" (whoever he is) that I do to Paris Hilton
    > (which is zero).


    Er, ah, counter-facts, uh, directly in evidence! :)

    But I know what you mean. I may make him my bitch again this year after
    taking a year off.

    --
    lsmft
    John McWilliams, Jan 1, 2008
    #10
  11. C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >On 2008-01-01 05:38:47 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >
    >> Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >>> John Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.
    >>>> I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX
    >>>> format, ISO 200, 14
    >>>> bit RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.
    >>>> Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my
    >>>> D2X that are
    >>>> 19-20mb each.
    >>>> Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in
    >>>> a D3?
    >>> Nikon is simply using better streamlining techniques
    >>> to make the file as
    >>> efficient as possible. Their lossless compression scheme is also better.
    >>> The D3's default setting is set at "lossless compression."

    >> None of the above appears to be true. It's simply
    >> "Rita" trolling.

    >
    >Actually, Rita is correct on all counts.


    The lossless compression scheme is better? Than what?

    Rita's advice was to totally ignore settings that give
    better results, and stick with settings that reduce the
    file size. What the OP asked for was better results,
    not smaller files.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 1, 2008
    #11
  12. John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >John Smith wrote:
    >> I pay less attention to "Rita" (whoever he is) that I
    >> do to Paris Hilton (which is zero).

    >
    >Er, ah, counter-facts, uh, directly in evidence! :)
    >
    >But I know what you mean. I may make him my bitch again this year after
    >taking a year off.


    Enough idle talk. Take pictures, post evidence, or stop
    teasing us with only the potential for the best laugh ever.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 1, 2008
    #12
  13. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    Exactly. Thanks again for your help Floyd.


    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>On 2008-01-01 05:38:47 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >>
    >>> Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >>>> John Smith wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.
    >>>>> I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX
    >>>>> format, ISO 200, 14
    >>>>> bit RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.
    >>>>> Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my
    >>>>> D2X that are
    >>>>> 19-20mb each.
    >>>>> Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in
    >>>>> a D3?
    >>>> Nikon is simply using better streamlining techniques
    >>>> to make the file as
    >>>> efficient as possible. Their lossless compression scheme is also
    >>>> better.
    >>>> The D3's default setting is set at "lossless compression."
    >>> None of the above appears to be true. It's simply
    >>> "Rita" trolling.

    >>
    >>Actually, Rita is correct on all counts.

    >
    > The lossless compression scheme is better? Than what?
    >
    > Rita's advice was to totally ignore settings that give
    > better results, and stick with settings that reduce the
    > file size. What the OP asked for was better results,
    > not smaller files.
    >
    > --
    > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    John Smith, Jan 1, 2008
    #13
  14. John Smith

    Jim Guest

    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>On 2008-01-01 05:38:47 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >>
    >>> Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >>>> John Smith wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.
    >>>>> I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX
    >>>>> format, ISO 200, 14
    >>>>> bit RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.
    >>>>> Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my
    >>>>> D2X that are
    >>>>> 19-20mb each.
    >>>>> Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in
    >>>>> a D3?
    >>>> Nikon is simply using better streamlining techniques
    >>>> to make the file as
    >>>> efficient as possible. Their lossless compression scheme is also
    >>>> better.
    >>>> The D3's default setting is set at "lossless compression."
    >>> None of the above appears to be true. It's simply
    >>> "Rita" trolling.

    >>
    >>Actually, Rita is correct on all counts.

    >
    > The lossless compression scheme is better? Than what?
    >
    > Rita's advice was to totally ignore settings that give
    > better results, and stick with settings that reduce the
    > file size. What the OP asked for was better results,
    > not smaller files.
    >
    > --
    > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

    I read Rita's post to mean that the lossless compression scheme that Nikon
    has implemented
    in the D3 is better than the one they implemented in the D2. Which
    statement may or may not
    be correct.
    Jim
    Jim, Jan 1, 2008
    #14
  15. Annika1980 wrote:

    >> Yep, same here. Its performance and build quality is stunningly
    >> Nikon. My first impression is the camera is severely under priced
    >> for what it gives back.

    >
    > Speaking of giving back, when does your current rental period expire?


    I got it all week.

    > On a related note, I notice that rentglass.com is now renting DSLR
    > bodies as well as lenses. So far they offer the D300 for Nikon and
    > the 5D and the 40D for Canon.
    > So maybe I'll get the 5D or a week and put it through its paces.


    Cool! Give it a try. I highly recommend you renting the 500/4L IS and the
    500/4 Nikkor w/adapter. Ask for Pete and he'll give you a discount. Tell
    him I sent you.





    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 1, 2008
    #15
  16. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    >> Actually, Rita is correct on all counts.

    >
    > The lossless compression scheme is better? Than what?
    >
    > Rita's advice was to totally ignore settings that give
    > better results, and stick with settings that reduce the
    > file size. What the OP asked for was better results,
    > not smaller files.


    Read the fucking manual dumbass! The D3 comes preset from Nikon with
    lossless compression set to *ON*. Don't believe me, do a factory reset.
    Uncle Floyd, trust me, you can set the quality to BASIC JPG and your
    pictures of snow covered slums will all look the same, like the whale shit
    you post on your site. Even if you had the capability you wouldn't be able
    to distinguish between the two in a double-blind test.






    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 1, 2008
    #16
  17. Jim wrote:

    > I read Rita's post to mean that the lossless compression scheme that
    > Nikon has implemented
    > in the D3 is better than the one they implemented in the D2. Which
    > statement may or may not
    > be correct.


    Someone with a great deal of reading comprehension. Thank you.





    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 1, 2008
    #17
  18. John Smith wrote:

    > Exactly. Thanks again for your help Floyd.


    How precious. An idiot sock puppet happy to get advice from the master
    idiot.





    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 1, 2008
    #18
  19. John Smith

    Sosumi Guest

    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >>On 2008-01-01 05:38:47 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >>
    >>> Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >>>> John Smith wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I just shot some test images today with my new Nikon D3.
    >>>>> I noticed that a number of .NEF images today (FX
    >>>>> format, ISO 200, 14
    >>>>> bit RAW) are 15-16mb each in size.
    >>>>> Two years ago I shot a number of .NEF images with my
    >>>>> D2X that are
    >>>>> 19-20mb each.
    >>>>> Can anyone help explain why they would be SMALLER in
    >>>>> a D3?
    >>>> Nikon is simply using better streamlining techniques
    >>>> to make the file as
    >>>> efficient as possible. Their lossless compression scheme is also
    >>>> better.
    >>>> The D3's default setting is set at "lossless compression."
    >>> None of the above appears to be true. It's simply
    >>> "Rita" trolling.

    >>
    >>Actually, Rita is correct on all counts.

    >
    > The lossless compression scheme is better? Than what?
    >
    > Rita's advice was to totally ignore settings that give
    > better results, and stick with settings that reduce the
    > file size. What the OP asked for was better results,
    > not smaller files.


    Actually both Rita and Wandering Eagle ;-) are right; you're wrong.

    The lossless compression scheme NOW is better than before; hence the fact,
    that for the D3 and D300 files, a new version of NX and ACR is needed. Not
    only hardware is made better; new algorithms are found for software and
    compression.
    No other settings give better results than 14 bit, lossless or uncompressed.
    That's why they call it "lossless" or without losing anything.
    So the OP can have both: small files with best quality.
    Some people would like no compression, because perhaps it could be slightly
    faster with editing and rendering.


    --
    Sosumi
    Sosumi, Jan 1, 2008
    #19
  20. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    **** off Rita,

    I don't know if you're some PMS-ridden sorry ass of a bitchy ****, or just
    another really bad female impersonator, but regardless of who/what the ****
    your are, please just disappear and leave us all alone.

    You're one sorry excuse for a human being.

    John




    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > John Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Exactly. Thanks again for your help Floyd.

    >
    > How precious. An idiot sock puppet happy to get advice from the master
    > idiot.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    John Smith, Jan 1, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Geshu Iam
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    842
    Roland Karlsson
    Aug 17, 2004
  2. akiley

    Nikon D2X jpeg large but Pshop mades it smaller

    akiley, Mar 20, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    552
    akiley
    Mar 22, 2007
  3. =?Utf-8?B?dGhhbmt5b3U=?=

    font of the active title bar appears smaller and smaller automatic

    =?Utf-8?B?dGhhbmt5b3U=?=, Oct 12, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    626
    Tony Sperling
    Oct 12, 2005
  4. D
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    924
  5. D
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    428
Loading...

Share This Page