HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sm@cel.co.uk (salim mehta)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: partial metering on EOS 650 - HOW?????
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:27:33 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Crosfield Electronics Ltd.
In-reply-to: graham@ug.cs.dal.ca's message of 23 Jul 92 23:40:18 GMT

In article <Brv8F7.74M@cs.dal.ca> graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham) wrote:

[stuff deleted]
> I put it (EOS 650) in AV mode and got 1/3 sec for correct exposure.
                                        ^^^
> Then I held down the partial metering button and focussed in on the guy's
> bright guitar. This resulted in 7/10ths!!! 
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Clearly you expected the partial reading to give you a faster exposure. You
ofcourse realise that this would result in an almost black picture; with just
the brightest part of the scene correctly exposed!!!

What confuses me here is the way you specify time values. Are you sure that
the first reading *was* 1/3sec (=0.3sec)? More likely the display showed a
value of 1.3sec. I assume that 7/10ths is quaint Amer. for 0.7sec ; ) in
which case the bright guitar required half the exposure of the whole scene.


> I took one shot at 1/3 for the hell of it, but I was mad that I could figure
> out partial metering. I do have the manual - but it is VERY vague.

A pity you didn't "take one shot at 7/10ths for the hell of it". The best way
to learn is to experiment. The manual explains how the controls work, NOT
photographic technique. Try a bookshop or a library if you want to know more
about exposure.

> mike
> -- 
> e-mail graham@ug.cs.dal.ca if you like to trade live audio/video tapes
> **************************************************************************

--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Salim Mehta                                 Crosfield Electronics Ltd
                                             Three Cherry Trees Lane
 Tel:  +44 442 230000  x3450                 Hemel Hempstead
 Fax:  +44 442 232301                        Hertfordshire  HP2 7RH  England
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 sm@crosfield.co.uk, sm@cel.uucp, sm@cel.co.uk, ...!{mcsun,ukc,uunet}!cel!sm
 ============================================================================
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Kodak CC vs. Durst CC values
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:16:55 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Robert Claeson writes:

>Is there anyone who happens to have a chart or a formula for translating
>between Durst and Kodak CC values? Or possibly a pointer to where I can
>find one?

According to an issue of Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques from
about a year ago, Durst uses sensitometric values.  I can't remember
the data that they gave, but I deduced that 

	"Durst units" = .7 x "CC units" (actually, .68 to be accurate)

(Durst units are "bigger" :-)

I have this stuck to the wall of my darkroom and use it frequently when 
changing emulsions on Cibachrome for applying the correction from my enlargers
results to the starting pack that they recommend for the new emulsion.

Now, having said this, I'll be interested to find out from all you netters
just how far off the mark I am!

Barry




-- 


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp.       | "Any fool can face a crisis - it's     | 
| bjs@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com           |  this day-to-day living that wears you |
|                                   |  out." - Anton Chekhov                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction.  Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions.  Unfortunately, this has been  |
| said of me as well.                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ben_wen@athena.mit.edu (Benson Wen)
Subject: Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:08:34 GMT

Hey, no flaming.
-Ben
--

|| Benson Wen
|| ben_wen@athena.mit.edu
|| queeph@hing.lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best)
Subject: Re: Long lenses
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:25:49 GMT
Organization: your service

> I just bought...a 60mm -- 300mm zoom...this lens just happens to
> weigh about 1/2 to 2/3 what my 80mm to 200mm weighs.  the lighter weight
> certainly helps steady the lens, relative to my 200mm.

----------

Just the opposite, in my opinion.  The heavier it is, the steadier
you can hold it (within reason, that is - not so heavy that you're 
panting and straining under the load).

Actually, it's more than an opinion - my camcorder is a lot lighter
than the ones a few years back, and it's all I can do to get a steady 
picture, even with two hands.  Might definitely makes right in this case.

I can only imagine the reverse to be true if you shoot with both hands on 
the camera, with a long lens 'dangling' out in front.  In this case, the
lower mass of a lighter lens would cause less of a 'swaying' moment.
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Contax T2
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:10:55
Organization: CSUA/UCB
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu's message of 22 Jul 92 16:56:12 GMT

      In terms of small rangefinders, I think nothing can beat the olympus
    XA (or XA-3 and XA-4) and old leica screwmounts.

I had an XA for a while and think it is a much overrated camera
in this newsgroup.  The rangefinder base is absurdly small and
the focus control is so fiddly that the rangefinder is almost useless.
The scale focusing system on the Minox 35 was much easier to focus
precisely even though you have to guess the distance.  Also,
the XA's optics were no better than today's decent quality 
point and shoot.  The add-on flash made it quite a bit bulkier
than the Yashica T4, etc., the recycle was slower, and it had
manual film advance.  The Olympus 35RC and friends seemed
a lot nicer, with manual speeds etc., though a bit bigger.

Newsgroups: rec.photo,rec.movies,rec.video.production
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: FOR SALE: Angeneux Zoom 10x25
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 09:48:23 GMT

For sale, for a friend with no net access

Angenieux 10x25 25-250mm f3.2 zoom lens. Ari mount, case included. 
Optics mint, exterier unmarked except corners of coupling gear teeth. Very
little use.

PLS mail offers, including phone number, timezone and time you can be contacted.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: Focal length rip-off. Coincidence?
Organization: LA&W RR
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 13:54:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.165135.25686@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:

>If you look at all the Pop. Photog. lens tests and analyse the data it is
>pretty clear that someone is playing fast and loose with focal length and
>aperture markings. For example none of the 300mm lenses (fixed or zoom) is
>really a 300mm lens. They are all around 280mm. Apertures are rarely as
>marked (usually the true aperture is less than the marked aperture). For 
>example the Sigma 400/5.6 tested as an f6.2. Now I know that in the real

>tolerence of +/- 5% being normal etc. But ALL the lenses are -5%. There are
>no instances of lenses being significantly faster or longer than advertised
>but many cases of slower, shorter lenses - often by more than 5%. 


Hummm.  I wonder if that means that the 24mm wide they test is really
22.8?  I suspect it is more like 26!  =B^[
From: freudent@vlsi3.ultra.nyu.edu (Eric Freudenthal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: comparisons of minolta series: 5000 v. 5000i v. 3xi (cont'd)
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:10:00 GMT
Organization: /a/users/freudent/.organization

A final question that I forgot from my previous note:

Do the 3xi/5xi internal flashes have "fill" modes?  Is this their
normal mode?

Thanks, Eric
--
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
				Eric Freudenthal
				NYU Ultracompter Lab
				715 Broadway, 10th floor
				New York, NY  10003
				
				Phone:(212) 998-3345 work
				      (718) 789-4486 home
				Email:freudent@lab.ultra.nyu.edu
From: huw@castle.ed.ac.uk (H G J Evans)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Toting a tripod?
Keywords: tripod cases straps carrying
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:29:32 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul30.231010.21438@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>I'm going on a trip next week and intend to take my tripod along for the ride.
>However, I was wondering about how to carry it.  The options appear to be as
>follows:
>
>	1. Buy a tripod strap.
>	2. Buy a cheap case.
>	3. Buy an expensive, padded case.

>
>Cases:
>
>   Advantages:
>      tripod is less conspicuous

Is  that really an advantage? I'm not sure why it should be, or do you
just mean that it would be less of a temptation to the local tea-leaves?

>      the padded case should be more comfortable
>       (instead of having the tripod banging against by hip)

Yes, I'd go along with that: a heavy tripod can be *exceedingly* uncom-
fortable if you have to carry it any distance.


>   Disadvantages:
>      slow to get set up

I think the thing to do is use the case when you are walking between
locations, and then use a strap while moving about 'on site'. The case
will probably pack away into a rucksack pocket, or whatever.

>
>Strap:
>   Advantages:

>      ...(but not cheaper than a cheap case!)

Well that all depends on what kind of a strap you use. I use an old
leather belt which I modified to fit onto either a Benbo Mk. 1 or
a Manf. 055. That didn't cost me anything. Also, the slings that
mountaineers use on their ice axes can be pressed into service as
a shoulder sling for a tripod, and they are usually quite cheap.


>   Disadvantages:

If you use a case as I suggested above, I can see no disadvantages
to having a strap as well. 


>
>The tripod in question is a Manfrotto 190 (smallish thing--I don't know
>the number for the equivalent Bogen).  I think my next tripod will be a
>Manfrotto 055...

[Excellent choice - you'll have to pay a lot more to get anything that's
better engineered]



>So, fellow travellers, any opinions?
>

Yup: use both. I would if I could afford a case, but since I'm not too
concerned about my tripods taking a few knocks it is a low priority for
me.


Huw.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lannert@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Subject: Re: Eye Dominancy (Was: Left-eye vs. Right-eye)
Keywords: left eye, right eye...
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet Duesseldorf
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:53:40 GMT

>>In article <1992Jul20.173326.3652@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mgsellma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Gsellman) writes:
>>>
>>>...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)
>>

After having read about other people's experiences with that method, I
decided to try it myself - and got stuck! I see *two* holes in the paper
simultaneously and have the choice as to which one get to cover the
object. (And that, of course, decides at which eye I'll end up.)

Is this unusual? Do other people see just one hole at a time? Or am I
doing it wrong?

I feel a bit embarrassed to admit that I can't get such a simple thing
right (let alone operate a modern camera ...) but it sort of worries me.

Thank you for shedding some light on this (or through the hole, as it
were :-)!

--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Ab morgen wird gearbeitet."
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: denny@tss.com (Denny Page)
Subject: Wooden fields as mantle pieces?
Organization: Teknekron Software System, Inc.
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:15:31 GMT

Hmm...  I was in a camera store today (Bear Images in PA if anyone
is familiar) and briefly discussed my intended purchase of a Wisner
TF with the (owner?).

The man seemed almost alarmed that I was considering the purchase of a
*wooden* camera.  He claimed that people who owned wooden cameras used
them mostly as mantle pieces, rather than for shooting.  He seemed
particularly fond of the word "warp" and its derivatives.

He also told me a "true" customer story, which goes like this:

  Customer1 buys a wooden camera (presumably from somewhere else,
  because this guy would not have sold him one).

  Customer1 decides the wooden camera is worthless, and buys a metal
  one (from this store).

  Weeks/months later on, while Customer1 is in the store, a second
  customer asks if the store carries wooden cameras (which of course
  they do not).  Overhearing Customer2's inquiry about wooden cameras,
  Customer1 proceeds to "unload" his wooden camera (a Wisner BTW) on
  Customer2.  (The guy expressed real distaste about Customer1 doing
  this to Customer2, and further having it happen in his store).

  "The next week", Customer2 has also decided that wood cameras are
  worthless, and is back in the store to purchase a metal one.

  Etc.


Comments?


Denny
From: russell@Apple.COM (Russell Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz
Keywords: opinions
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:57:33 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

If it's just a trick to get more money out of consumers, they've
sure managed to fool the pros too. The F4 sells quite well. Aside
from the fact that any halfway serious camera lets you turn off
the automation, ask yourself for a second what AF/AE is automating.

With my SR-T101, I twisted dials until the little needles lined up.
If I didn't like what the camera picked for exposure, I closed
down an extra half-stop or whatever. The only thing that's different
about AE is that the camera twists the dial for me. I still pay
attention to what f-stop and shutter speed I'm using; I still
close down an extra half-stop if I don't like the exposure. It's
just faster and easier now, and I spend less time twisting dials
and staring at needles. The same thing goes for AF. I used to
focus by lining up the split images. Now I let the camera do it.
I still decide what to focus on (in fact, I leave the "wide-area"
AF off most of the time, and use only the small central area AF
sensor so it's easy to control exactly what the point of focus is),
but the camera is much faster and more accurate than I was. 

I don't understand what creativity people see in twisting dials
and matching needles and split images. I certainly couldn't tell
the difference between the chromes out of the two cameras, but
a lot fewer of the 7xi's end up in the trash because of knob-
twisting errors, and there are some I've gotten with an AF body 
that would have just sailed by while I focussed
the SR-T (and I don't shoot sports. I'm talking about shots like
the guy in a leather mask at the gay parade stretching and enjoying
the sun on his face just for a second before he turned and walked
into the crowd, or...) 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: 127 Film 
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:53:26 GMT


Does anyone know sources for this?  My brother has a baby rollie
that we would like to use more.....

Thanks
Greg
-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:28:28 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Labratory, Washington, DC

In article <1992Jul22.215223.29824@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
>| With the exception of the F4 and EOS1, using an AF/AE camera in
>| maunual mode is in general a pain.  I don't have much experience 
>| with the AF stuff, but using an AE Canon A1 in manual is a royal pain.
>
>						-Anthony
>
>The writer starts out by making a sweeping generalization, then
>admits he has little or no experience with the equipment he is
>criticizing. He then finishes by comparing modern autofocus
>cameras to a ten-year old design--an irrelevant comparison.

	I am stating the fact that I don't use enough AF to critize
it, but I have use enough AE to know that I don't like them.
Would you rather I make a sweeping statement saying both AF and
AE suck?

>
>| I am sure there is a way to overide the auto DX, after about a 
>| sequence of 15 button pushes and knob twisting.
>
>This is nonsense. This kind of information is worse than useless,
>since it confuses inexperienced readers who genuinely want to know
>what benefits modern camera technology can and can't provide.
>
>						-Alan

	So, how about privide me with a step by step on how you would
overide the AE and auto-DX in your favorite AF/AE camera.  The reason
I bought up the auto-DX is because a friend of mine is taking
a photography class and they needed some tungsten balanced film,
since I just happen to have a 100' roll, I figure I can sell her and
her classmates some film for a low low price and maybe I can reclaim
some space in my fridge.  The bottom line is, they can't use bulk
loaded film because not a single one of them know how to overide
their camera.

-Anthony
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:04:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul27.220444.8497
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Jul27.190319.29543@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.183634.4539@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>If you can't get in to a certain event to take pictures, then
>>how are you ever going to sell what you don't have, or can't get, simply
>>because of stupid rules that try and separate some photographers from
>>others. Its the old catch 22 syndrome.
>
>Surely _some_ salable pictures can be taken without being granted special
>access...

Possibly, but it makes it all that much more harder, when your pictures
have to compete against another persons who took pictures from a more
accessable position.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: freudent@vlsi3.ultra.nyu.edu (Eric Freudenthal)
Subject: zoom telephoto lenses
Organization: /a/users/freudent/.organization
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:00:10 GMT

Does anybody know about these lenses:

(prices are from b&h)

for minolta maxxum xi:
 minolta 80-200 4-5.6xi $162
 samyang 70-210 4-5.6 $120
 sigma 70-210 4-5.6 $100
 tokina 70-210 4-5.6 $80
 tamron 70-210 4 $110

My priorities are:
 1: sharpness
 2: minimizing weight
 3: ergonomics (reasonable controls; I'd rather it not feel like a toy)
 4: price

Of course, price becomes more iportant as prices go up.

Please send me your responses directly; I'll post a composite of your
letters.

Thanks, Eric
--
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
				Eric Freudenthal
				NYU Ultracompter Lab
				715 Broadway, 10th floor
				New York, NY  10003
				
				Phone:(212) 998-3345 work
				      (718) 789-4486 home
				Email:freudent@lab.ultra.nyu.edu
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: SB-24/wedding (Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz)
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:23:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

From article <1992Jul23.194344.68481@cs.cmu.edu>, by phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Gleichauf):
>>>Now how do you use SB-24 for vertical shot?  Presumably, I would want
>>>bounced flash *all the time*.  Does the SB-24 has a cardboard bounce accessory
>>>like the old Vivitar 285?  Is there any (cheap) way I can enable ceiling
>>>bounced flash even on vertical shot?
> 
> I hope that the original poster understands that the SB-24 has a swivel head that
> can be twisted (when the camera is oriented horizontally) either up and down or
> side to side.  This means that you can use the flash on the camera's hot shoe,
> held vertically with the flash twisted side to side, to bounce light off the
> ceiling without a softbox and bracket.  

I didn't know that, but do now.  Thanks.

> There is no bounce angled Nikon accessory
> bracket for a white card, but if you really want to bounce off of a ceiling there
> is no reason for one.  The softbox and Stroboframe solution is nearly $200, so 
> it does not qualify as cheap, but I have used it extensively and can recommend
> it when you have the room to maneuver.

I am interested in the soft box solution.  How big it is?  Would it get
in the way of the SB-24 or part of the SB-24, or make useless any feature
of the SB-24?  Is there any fixing-up I need to do to attach it to the
SB-24?  What is the price?  Where can I get it in the Bay area?  Thanks
a bunch.
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Electronic Flashes (Pentax, Olympus, and Chinon)
Date: 27 Jul 92 06:08:20 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

HO@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Francis Ho) writes:

>(2) RONKUNAR MX382T TTL dedicated for PENTAX or OLYMPUS (AF or manual focus
>      TTL metering) cameras
>    G/N 66 (ISO 100/FT)
>    AF illumination to 16ft (auto focus in total darkness or dim cond.)
>    Auto (TTL) range 3.3 ft to 22 ft
>    TTL exposure control will work in Program mode and all other modes.
>      including Manual Mode.

I bought one of these flashes from Franics.  A few things one should know
before buying one.

The AF illuminator looks like a large tumor extending out from the body
farther than the actual strobe.  Kinda gross looking.

There is no exposure wheel and if the unit is used off the camera, it is
strictly manual.  Where the exposure wheel normally is there is a chart
with two entries - the usable distance for 100 and 400 film.

There is no PC cord or jack so other than full auto use on the above
listed cameras requires an adaptor and manual usage.

I bought the flash to be used as a fill flash.  It will be used with
a slave trigger and a flash meter.  I'm satisfied with my purchase
and the value received for the money but if I'd bought the flash to use
on the camera, I'd be less than pleased with the ugliness of the thing
and the lack of controls.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.