HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Illuminated buildings, advice required.
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:10:23 GMT
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Jul23.140916.27901@gdr.bath.ac.uk>, mapres@gdr.bath.ac.uk (R E Slade) writes:

|>  I have been asked to take photographs of a church (here in England) which
|>is being specially lit up by floodlight.  I only have one chance at this
|>so I want to make sure that I get it right!
When you say floodlight, what exactly is the source?  Carbon arc is pretty
close to daylight.  Incandescent lamps would need a tungsten balanced film
(like EPT).  Mercury Vapour is going to need warming filters (very blue).

|>  My camera is a Canon EOS 1000FN with 35-105mm f4.5-5.6 lens.  Perhaps someone
|>else has taken similar photos with this camera and could give me some advice as
|>to films, reciprocity failure, exposure compensation etc.
Most color films are fine down to a 1/10 of a second.  Below that they will
shift colors and speed.  Each film is a little different and will come packed
with that sort of info (usually).  EPT (ektachrome 64t) on the other hand is
designed for longer exposures.  I believe that in the 35mm format, Kodak also
makes an iso 200 tung. chrome film.

jimf
From: feltman@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Robert Feltman)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:31:18 GMT
Subject: Re: B&W enlarger advice
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

If there is half a chance you will be doing this for a while, buy
somthing versitile and rigid. A used Beseler 23 is strong, will outlast
you and can accomodate up to 6x9 with the right carrier and lens.

I have one of the oldest versions, have adapted a cold light to it for black
and white, and find it's performance excellent. I have seen older
23 C's with condenser head for under $200. Also consider other brands
used. If yu shop, you can get more for your money and often they are
higher quality equipment.

Bob
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rodney@cs.UAlberta.CA (Rodney Gitzel)
Subject: Eye Dominancy (Was: Left-eye vs. Right-eye)
Keywords: left eye, right eye...
Organization: University of Alberta
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.173326.3652@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mgsellma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Gsellman) writes:
>I don't think RE,LE,RH,LH combos have anything to do with which combo a person 
>uses.  I think it has to do with Eye Dominancy.  Most, if not everyone has a 
>dominant eye.  The way you can find out is to...
>
>...take a piece of paper, cut out a hole about the size of a quarter in the 
>middle of the sheet.  Then look at an object with both eyes open, like you 
>normally would.  Hold the paper out in front of you while still looking at the 
>object.  When you get the object in the hole, slowly bring the paper to your 
>eye and you should end up with the hole over one of your eyes.  (ALLWAYS KEEP 
>BOTH EYES OPEN)
>

Hmmm.  The hole (or, my fingertip, actually) ends up at my right eye.
 Does that mean the right is dominant?  Does it make sense, by the dominancy
 theory, that I use my left eye for photography?  

Actually, what *would* make sense is that my left eye seems sharper
 than the right one.

Rodney
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: EOS Rebel vs. Minolta 3xi vs. Nikon 5005: Best Entry-level AF?
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:47:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul31.184735.7503
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <84898@netnews.upenn.edu> gasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Nathan Gasser ><>  ) writes:
>
>Hi all,
>
>I'm in the market for a beginner's AF SLR.   I'm looking at the 
>Canon EOS Rebel/Rebel S, the Minolta 3xi/SPxi, and the Nikon 5005.
>
>Anyone have any comments regarding the above selections?  Something
>in the same category I'm ignoring?
>
>My concerns:
>Is the Rebel's construction too flimsy?

Not really, its strong enough, and with a good conformal body case, its
even more indestructable.

>Is the Minolta's xi autozomming worth anything?

I didn't buy my 7xi for this feature, and I usually have it turned off.

>Is the Nikon's many dials and guages clumsy and slow to use?

Depends on your dexterity.....

>What are the (dis)advantages of built-in flash?

Lots of Red Eye.
You always have it with you.
Not very powerful.
Good for some quick fill flash.
on the Minolta, it also allows you to use wireless off camera flash.

>And the question of the day:
>How do I get one of these cameras to take a 40-minute exposure?  None
>have a cable release connection.

Put it on the bulb setting, and hold down the shutter release for 40
minutes....:-)


Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sttay@athena.mit.edu (Stephen T Tay)
Subject: advice needed on nikon f3
Keywords: nikon f3
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 02:31:58 GMT

hi rec.photo readers.
i recently bought a used nikon f3 (the non-high eyepoint version). unfortunately,
the camera came without the instruction manual. would appreciate if someone could
help me with the following:

1. i think there are two battery compartments in the base plate of the body. what
are these compartments for?

2. the f3 comes with a de-2 viewfinder. does this viewfinder give 100% coverage?

thanks.

stephen.

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: clev@cisco.com (Robert Clevenger)
Subject: Re: fiberglass/wood sinks for home darkrooms
Organization: Cisco Systems
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:24:42 GMT

In article <Brwtxp.32t@watserv1.waterloo.edu> imprint@watserv1.waterloo.edu (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper) writes:

   Has anyone tried doing this? I don't imagine the chemicals would eat
   away at fiberglassed wood, assuming one keeps the thing in a reasonable
   state of cleanliness.
	My questions concern construction of the beast.

   I was thinking of using 3/4 inch particleboard for the basic structure,
   but I was also planning to build some sort of washing contraption on one
   end of it (waterfall-style trays, or vertical washing, I don't know yet).
   Anyhow, the one end is going to be holding a considerable amount of water
   when I'm processing. Anyone tried this and have any problems with brackets or
   supports for it? Perhaps some right angled steel for the corners? Suggestions?

3/4 inch particleboard seems like overkill to me.  This stuff is heavy
and not very resistant to maisture.

I just went thru this.  I  wanted a sink that would fit above my
bathtub in a spare bathroom.  Since I could not find one the exact
dimensions from a manufacturer I decided to build one.

I used 1x4's for the sides and a sheet of 1/8th inch plywood for the
bottom.  Construction was very simple.  The corners of the sides are
butt joined and the bottom simply screwed on the bottom of the frame.
I glued, trued, and screwed all of the joints to make them as strong
as possible.  I then caulked all of the inside joints with the best
weatherproof caulk I could find and allowed plenty of time for this to
dry.  Then I cut a hole for the drain and primed the entire (inside
and out) surface with the best primer I could find.  Then I applied
several coats of the best glossy enamel paint I could find - something
that cleans easily (I asked the guy in the hardware store for the most
durable paint for the application).  I then built frames out of 1x2
that would hold the sink ~2 feet above my bath tub (also glued,
screwed, and painted).  The whole thing cost me less than $25 and
works perfectly.  I would not consider letting water set in it for
long periods of time however, I use mine like a giant drainboard and
never really fill it with water.

   And with regards to a temperature mixer, I want to avoid buying a professional
   one that's gonna cost several hundred dollars. Are normal household tap or
   shower one-shot deals consistent enough once you set them.

I simply use the bathtub spigot (with hose connected).  I have to let
the water run for a little while to stabilize, but once it has it
stays pretty much constant.  I do not have roommates or a family
however, so I don't have people flushing toilets and taking showers
while I'm working.

   Email appreciated, unless you think the net would benefit from any of your
   experiences.

   Thanks in advance,

   Dave T.

   --
From: mqd1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MAURICE Q. DADOUN)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: DO YOU KNOW SOME GOOD ADDRESS ?
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:40:14 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Hi,
This is my second posting in this network and I have to say that I am
agreeably impressed, so many people take time to answer you, that's great.

I have an other request (hope that netters wont be made at me because I
always ask questions):

Does anybody know good (and safe) address & phone # of used camera (Pentax,
Ricoh) dealers in New-York and Philadelphia ?
I really hate shops where sellers clip eggs to sell you hairs!!!(Like in
too many shops in N-Y)

Thanks, Maurice
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jgong@.com (John Gong)
Subject: Re: Olympus Stylus owners, please advise me!
Reply-To: jgong@oracle.com (John Gong)
Organization: Oracle Internet Staff
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:19:04 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.


The Stylus comes in three versions as far as I can tell.  The original, no
nonsense version, one with date or time stamp which comes with a velvety
pouch and has gold buttons (one that my wife has), and a "limited edition"
that has a reflective black finish.  Don't know its special features however.

Local price was comparable to what others quoted:  about $110 +-$10.  The
second version was puchased (as a kit) for $150 at Whole Earth Access locally.



       John

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: muthu@mecad.uta.edu (S.N. Muthukrishnan)
Subject: Re: olympus IS1, eats batteries or defect...?
ReplyTo: muthu@mecad.uta.edu
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington
NntpPostingHost: mecad.uta.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 13:06:02 GMT
X-Bytes: 774

In article <1992Jul19.230136.22122@unlinfo.unl.edu> kting@cse.unl.edu (Kea  
Ting) writes:
> yehuda@ilx129 (Yizraeli Yehuda) writes:
> 
> 
> >Hi there,
>     On my maxxum 7000i, the lithium battery will last for 1215 (not very  
sure),during the winter. During the summer time like this, I have a lithium the  
> soon
> 
> University Of                  Disclaimer :
> NebraskaLincoln               I always speak for myself.


On my Maxuum 7000i, I loaded the battery when I bought it in 90 Oct.
It still is strong. I have taken about 3035 rools of 24 frames.

Muthu


S. N. Muthukrishnan                   muthu@mecad.uta.edu (NeXT mail)
Department of Mechanical Engineering  muthu@me.uta.edu
University of Texas at Arlington      muthu@mech.uta.edu
Arlington, TX  76019

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Subject: Re: Novice 4x5 field gear questions
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 02:22:19 GMT


To answer some of your questions:

(1) the Calumet changing room (actually made by Photoflex) is very convenient
and good as such things go.

(2) Lisco Regal II 4x5 film holders at about $12.00 each are a good product
and a good buy.

(3) There is nothing like an empty film box for storing exposed film
and shipping to lab.

brian
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: clev@cisco.com (Robert Clevenger)
Subject: Re: Spot meters
Organization: Cisco Systems
	<1992Jul23.030020.15518@math.waterloo.edu>
	<1992Jul23.133607.8545@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
	<1992Jul23.194051.15743@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:28:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.194051.15743@odin.corp.sgi.com> donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis) writes:

   Oh, I think the Pentax digital is the smallest and lightest; perhaps
   smaller than most hand-held meters, though shaped quite differently.
   It's really the best of the bunch for the zone system in the field, in
   my opinion, because it's accurate, reliable, small, light, easy to zone
   with, and doesn't bother you with tenths of a stop when you really only
   want thirds.  (Some techno-types might consider third-stop resolution
   to be a disadvantage, but in real-world photography, I would claim just
   the opposite.)

How does this meter compare to the Gossen Ultra-Spot 1 meter (~$400)
for zone system photography?  The Gossen has zone functions built in.
You may take a reading and essentially tell the meter to put that spot
in whatever zone you like.  Further readings will indicate relative
zones.  It will also average a number of readings and allow the user
to select the zone for this average.  I am ready to purchase my own
meter for large format zone work and would appreciate any input.
   __	             _
  |  |'`'`'`'`'`'`'`| |
  |  |Rob Clevenger | |
  |  |              | |/|
  |  |clev@cisco.com| | |
  |  |              | |\|
  |  |415.688.4447  | |
  |  |              | |
  |__|`'`'`'`'`'`'`'|_|
   _|________________|_
  |____________________|
            T

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pmt@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Tromovitch Philip)
Subject: X-rays (airports) and film
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:39:58 GMT

A few questions about what is safe, and what is not safe, for film.

Is it safe to let the airports X-ray my carry-on camera bag w/ film in it?

On international flights, the baggage that goes under the plane
is supposed to be X-rayed, is this safe for film?

How about a box of film mailed from Europe to the USA; does it get
X-rayed as it comes through customs?

And lastly, are the answers to the above questions the same for exposed,
as well as unexposed film?

Thanks in advance,

Phil
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT ISSUE: What Camera/lens?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:23:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <1992Jul28.173734.23834@sactoh0.sac.ca.us>, by mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John):
> In <6#jm43-.hchong@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
> 
>>From article <1992Jul24.161008.14963@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, by chucksi@stc.comm.mot.com (Chuckorama):
>>> Kind of a weird question, but if anyone out there has seen any of the Sports
>>> Illustrated videos of their swimsuit issue phoography shoots, I was curious 
>>> what cameras (My guess: F1) and more particularly what lens (some of them were
>>> HUGE) it looked like they were using...I'm sort of a rookie to photography, but
>>> I love the contrast and clarity of the pictures, and the way the backgrounds
>>> were clear, but flat.
> 
>>This was discussed a long time ago in this group when HBO first showed 
>>the video.  I think the lens was a "regular" 300/2.8ED AF!  What F1?
>>[flame on] No pro would be caught dead with anything but a Nikon [flame off].
>>I think it was a Nikon F4s. 
> 
> 
> Well if you are talking about the February 11, 1991 issue of Sports
> Illustrated (the girl in the white swimsuit with the shadowline
> following her breast), that shot was with a Canon EOS 1 with the
> EF50mm f/1.0 lens. (Source- Canon CPS Professional Services Update,
> Special Edition 1992)
> 
> You see, the world doesn't always belong to Nikon.

Oh yeah?  I got one for you.  Canon cameras are made of plastic (so I was
told). 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rajiv@hilltop.mitre.org (Rajiv Kohli)
Subject: Best Magazine for Photography
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:32:52 GMT


Which is the best magazine to read/subscribe?

I am looking for a magazine or to be part of a group that will
help improve photography results. No, I am not anymore interested
in the cameras that are comming out. I have a minolta 7000. Yes,
a few addons I wouldn't mind.

Suggestions
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: K_LEPA@unhh.unh.edu (Kristen   Lepa)
Subject: Re: scratched negatives
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:12:09 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.12

In <1992Jul28.013931.11815@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu writes:

> There is an oily substance called Edwal No-Scratch that can be put on the
> negatives at the time of printing (temporarily) in order to fill the
> scratches.  I bought a bottle of it 10 years ago and still haven't opened
> it...  Any good custom lab ought to have it available.  Ask them to use it...
> 
> -- 
> ==========================================================================
> Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu  |  ham radio N4TMI
> Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.
> ==========================================================================



Nose grease works better.  Just my opinion.

	-Kristen
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikkor 180mm f2.8
Keywords: opinions
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:10:37 GMT
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ

In article <1992Jul24.233729.1618@makesys.com> john@makesys.com (John Turman) writes:

> I am considering the purchase of a 180mm f2.8 Nikkor to be used
> primarily as a lense for both indoor and outdoor portraits mainly
> geared toward wedding photography.

Your style may be different, but I would find 180mm much too long
for portraiture -- especially for weddings where you probably want
to have two people in the frame at once.

My evidence: the 35mm frame is 36mm in its long dimension.  180/36=5.
That means that for each foot you wish to cover in the long dimension
of your subject, you must be five feet away.

So, suppose you want a tightly cropped portrait of two people next
to each other.  It seems unlike you could get away with less than
3 feet coverage at your subject.  That means you must be at least
15 feet away from the subject.  That's pretty far.

There is also the issue that portraits taken that far away look flat.
It's like looking at people through binoculars.

The Nikon 180/2.8 seems to go for about $575 at the New York discounters.
If you're willing to spend that much, I suggest you consider the
80-200/2.8 ED instead for about $725.  Although I have not tried it
myself, everything I have heard indicates that the 80-200 is every bit
as sharp as the best prime lenses in that range.  There might be a tiny
bit more flare, but I think the main tradeoff is in size and price.
I would not be the least bit surprised to find that you use the lens
much more near the 80mm end of its range than the 200 mm end.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
From: cmayo@aspen.NSA.HP.COM (Chris Mayo)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: E-6 in Jobo
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:55:58 GMT
Organization: HP Networked Systems Architecture - Cupertino, CA

I believe the compensations you are recalling are for B/W.  I am told,
that NO compensation is required for E-6.  Continuous agitation is OK.

-Christopher Mayo		
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT ISSUE: What Camera/lens?
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 00:35:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <1992Jul24.161008.14963@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, by chucksi@stc.comm.mot.com (Chuckorama):
> Kind of a weird question, but if anyone out there has seen any of the Sports
> Illustrated videos of their swimsuit issue phoography shoots, I was curious 
> what cameras (My guess: F1) and more particularly what lens (some of them were
> HUGE) it looked like they were using...I'm sort of a rookie to photography, but
> I love the contrast and clarity of the pictures, and the way the backgrounds
> were clear, but flat.

This was discussed a long time ago in this group when HBO first showed 
the video.  I think the lens was a "regular" 300/2.8ED AF!  What F1?
[flame on] No pro would be caught dead with anything but a Nikon [flame off].
I think it was a Nikon F4s.
From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Which Camera to buy?
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:21:52
Organization: Department of Diabolical and Unauthorized Research
Reply-To: elm@cs.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: terrorism.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: Robert.Church@p27.f319.n105.z1.therose.pdx.com's message of 22 Jul 92 12:51:18 GMT

In article <711800287.F00009@therose.pdx.com> Robert.Church@p27.f319.n105.z1.therose.pdx.com (Robert Church) writes:
=>WSC>   Canon Elan
=>
=>Many nice features.  Of your choices, this would be _my_ #2.  Maybe different
=>for you.

=>WSC>   Nikon N6006
=>
=>Not as many gadgets as any of the others, but you gotta' love Nikon.  Their
=>optics are very good quality and their cameras are solid.  I own a N2020 and
=>love it.  #1

I just bought a new Elan.  I narrowed the choices to the N6006 and the
Elan, and then did serious comparisons.  Both were excellent cameras,
but the key feature that made the Elan better was its weight.  The
Elan was light, while the Nikon was *very* heavy.  If you don't mind a
polycarbonate camera and lenses, go with the Elan.

ethan
--
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
ethan miller--cs grad student   | "Anybody not wearing 2000000 sunblock's
elm@cs.berkeley.edu             |  gonna have a REALLY bad day.  GET IT?"
#include <std/disclaimer.h>     |  -- Sarah Connor, _Terminator 2_
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tjlow@ntuvax.ntu.ac.sg
Subject: Q: FAQ? FTP? Photography Software?
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:58:06 GMT

	
	Does anyone know if there is any computer software 
	that give theoretical instructions or computer simulation 
	on photograph?
	
	Is there any FTP sites with any photgraphy-related files
	which i can download from  ? 

	Where can I find the FAQ to this column?


	Thanks!
From: barnick@mesa.Kodak.COM (William M Barnick x73638)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: lens protection
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:19:59 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY

In article <1992Jul29.205328.22023@news2.cis.umn.edu> weiss@epx.cis.umn.edu writes:
>A professional photographer has suggested that I NOT place a skylight filter
>onto my new APO 100-300mm f4 zoom.
>He contends that doing so will degrade the lens performance and that the
>coating already on the lens should be sufficiently resistant to damage.
>Anyone have experience with this issue?
>Thanks!
> 

You need to drop the lens just once and you'll know what's wrong with the
above statement.  Also, unless you are shooting in a vacuum the air
quality will play a bigger part in "degrading" the image than a *good*
skylight or UV filter.  I am not trying to be funny here.  Air is not
that clean and temperature changes in air currents change the appearance
of an image greatly,  so the filter imperfections becomes insignificant.
A good example of this use to be shown in the Corning Museum.  They had
a piece of optical glass about 10 feet long and a tube of air of the
same length.  The image is much clearer through optical glass with just
10 feet of air.  That is why we use fiber-optics for communication rather
than just shooting a laser through air (among other reasons).

Also, the coating on the lens is there for many reasons,  but I do not think
"resistant to damage" is one of them.  Am I wrong ???  You scratch the coating
and its all over.

I would suggest you get a few more opinions.

PS: Just my opinion.

WMB


--
***  William M Barnick ** Eastman Kodak ** barnick@Kodak.COM ******************
***  Electronic Imaging Platform Center * Color Scanning Systems Lab          *
***  B/65-2 D/733 mc01804   Rochester NY   14650-1804                         *
**************************** (716) 477-3638 ***********************************
Newsgroups: rec.photo