HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: capskb@alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu (Keith Brewster)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 1.5 volt lithium batteries?
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:27:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <ptse.711682667@bwdls49> ptse@bwdls49.bnr.ca (Paul Tse) writes:
>I have seen AA-sized lithium batteries at a local
>photo store.  They come in fancy packages (sold
>singly) and are EXPENSIVE.  I couldn't believe it--
>I also forgot how much it was ($10 CDN each?).
>

These may have been from a Canadian manufacturer, Moli-energy.  They had
been (about 5 years ago) producing battery packs for special applications
(hand-held radios), but were working on an AA design.  These were Lithium-
Molybdenum disulfide (Li-MoS2).  They had the advantage of providing an
accurate "state-of-charge" reading and had about the same capacity as a
NiCd.  Cost was higher, however.  There was an article about them in an 
amateur radio magazine, QST, June 1987.  Their address/phone: 
Moli Energy 3958 Myrtle St, Burnaby, BC V5C 4G2, Canada.  (604) 437-6927. 
Maybe someone can report back on what they may offer for the photo user.

I have no connection with this company, not even as a costumer.

kb
-------------------------
Keith Brewster
capskb@alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: stb@dasher.uucp (25157-becker)
Subject: Nikon 35-105 or 35-135mm lens Experience
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 14:14:38 GMT

Have been looking around for a "medium long" tele lens for my Nikon AF (8008)
Camera.  I think that the ideal focal length range is 35 to 105 (135) mm.
Here are some of the lens that I have been considering.    

	(1) Nikon AF 35 to 105mm F3.5/4.5 (older version) 
	(2) Nikon AF 35 to 135mm F3.5/4.5 (new version)
	(3) Tamron AF 35 to 105 F2.8

I really like the Tamron constant aperature feature -- hate the 
fact that the Nikon lens are variabe aperature and slow!  However, have
heard some comments on the net that the Tamron is not sharp at 2.8 at
105, etc.  Also the Tamron is extemely expensive (twice the price) of the
other two lens.  Any additional info at this lens.

The second part of the question is for those who have owned the 35-105mm or
the 35-135mm.  I was expecially interested in
one of the older 35-105mm AF lens since it goes into macro at 105 versus
the new ones.  When I asked Nikon at at Photo Show - They indicated that the
new ones were made more solid and the lens quality improved - but the
macro focus at 35mm is a poor design in my opinon.

Any strong recommendations.
From: mandayrv@ucunix.san.uc.edu (The Karate Kid)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: E-6 in Jobo
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:55:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucunix.1992Jul23.175529.3260
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <CLEV.92Jul22144234@lager.cisco.com> clev@cisco.com (Robert Clevenger) writes:
>In article <3090@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:
>

	DELETED STUFF ABOUT JOBO PROCESSORS



My question is: Can somebody tell me what the price is for a new jobo
processor ( Mail order  or your local store )?

Thanks



-- 
  mandayrv@ucunix.san.uc.edu
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: PZ-1 over the EOS 10s, N8008s
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:36:51 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Originator: asanders@sparta

| ...I suppose you might even TRY some of the new features 
| before blasting them.
			 -Mark Newton-John

Actually, I HAVE tried them--starting with the Canon EOS 10s,
which struck me as sort of a cross between a camera and an
arcade game. :-) I love my 8008s, but enough is enough!

| ...these new features are NOT bells and whistles, but 
| features that make photography easier for the photographer.

This remains to be seen. I'm all for exposure automation and
autofocus. I'm for built-in motor drives, auto-bracketing and 
spot meters. I'm definitely for automatic fill flash. But
I'm not so sure I'm for expansion cards, barcode readers,
ten exposure modes, auto zoom settings and the like.
Whoever is: let 'em buy this stuff. Fine with me. But I
hate to see the sincere novice bombarded with all this
talk about "the latest features". Makes you positively
paranoid to buy anything! "What if they come out with
something EVEN BETTER next month?!"

| As I tell novices to more advanced customers, these 
| features free you from having to waste time dealing with 
| settings and focusing...

If you're talking about basic exposure automation and
autofocus, I quite agree. But there's some evidence that
the addition of all these other "features" can cause
the inexperienced photographer to waste alot of time
just figuring out how to use the camera.

Regards,

"Old dog at heart"
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: Intern...
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John)
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:24:57 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: msus

dtj@caffeine.cray.com (Dean Johnson) said (in part)
>I kinda work on the principal that the photographer with the most expensive
>gear has the right-of-way.
>
   Ah, the Yuppie SCUM Metric emerges in rec.photo.

>In my limited experience, I have found that the closer you look to Animal on
>the show "Lou Grant", the more likely you are to be mistaken for a pro. ;-)

  ...and yes, your experience is limited.
From: lakhindr@ESD.3Com.COM (Lakhinder Walia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: NIKON AF LENS. How to Choose.. ?
Keywords: AF 35-135mm. NIKON. Zoom. LENSES
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:34:17 GMT
Distribution: rec

I have bought a Nikon AF 35-135mm Zoom f3.5-4.5 lens.
I would like to have some kind of quantative analysis of
where this lens stands as compared to other nikon lenses--
whether zoom or fixed, which lie somewhere in the range 
this lens offers: 35-135mm. I have had this lens for about 
3 weeks. I have no experience with other Nikon lenses.


Basically I am trying to find whether to keep this lens or
buy some other nikon lenses. Why..?
   I dont want to keep a lens which is not going to give back
   its worth. I dont mind buying an expensive good lens.
What are the guidelines -- exhorbitant prices of course, and
my interests-listed below.


I am satisfied with this lens- No hassles I mean. But I dont love
its minimum focus distance of 5 feet (well, you could go below
this range, i.e <5 ft, but I feel Nikon has made a clumsy attempt
at giving a second ring for focusing at <5 ft. Small issue, please
dont bother so much about this..)
I also dont love a variable 
aperture idea. But Most important : how is the lens quality at
any of its focal length as compared to other Nikon AF lenses..?
The best thing about this lens: all purpose lens. It simply offers
the range I need- in one piece. Keeps the whole system light weight.


Would you suggest some other combination of lenses ? What are
the pros & cons. 

My interests:  people: groups and  Portraiture.  
               Children.

I appreciate your reading this far. Thank you.

-lakhinder walia
From: MSPERKO@kentvm.kent.edu (Mike Sperko)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: BACKGROUNDS: ADVICE NEEDED
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:39:52 GMT
Organization: Kent State Univ.

I am thinking about buying a background system.  I am looking at the
Bogen auto pole system.  Any thoughts or wisdom would be appreciated.
 
Thanks,
Mike Sperko
internet   msperko@kentvm.kent.edu
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: MF23 multi-back for F4s
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:26:07 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute


In article <ryhm##f.hchong@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:

>In conclusion, if you do a lot of photo (and use one-hour non-pro lab),
>the $450 is worth the price.  Of course there is the 3x-film/processing
>price to consider, but it is probably much cheaper than going to a 
>pro lab for enlargement.  

	Nothing wrong with your review.  I might add that it is
complicated and takes a bit of getting used to.  Also, it thickens the
F4 back so that for those of us with prominant beaks, you have a
tendancy to crush your nose a bit as you try to see all the viewfinder
... more so with glasses.
--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: print protection?
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:52:54 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <+rqx5cf@rpi.edu> changj@nova.cs.rpi.edu (John Chang) writes:


>Does anyone know of anything that would protect prints (primarily from 
>scratches), preferrably in something easily applicable like a spray?
>As many people know, Cibachrome is very easily scratched (and dirtied),
>and I'm tired of having it scratched up just from carrying it with
>other prints.  I've seen a spray for retouching photos and one for
>generic art/photo, but haven't seen one specifically for scratches.  
>Does such things exist?

>Also, when I make prints with Cibachrome, it seems to always come out
>with magenta cast.  This is with magenta filter reduced 10-15 from
>what's suggested on the paper package.  I can keep reducing the filter,
>but was wondering if this is a sign of my doing something wrong.  
>Thanks for any replies.

Artist who use charcoal or chalks have a spray they use to seal it.  I don't 
know if it would affect colour or anything else.  Check an art suppliers

+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: EV units
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:24:33 GMT
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA


In article <Brt6un.1Ey@solbourne.com>, tls@solbourne.com (Tom Schreur) writes:

|> It is my understanding that EV is a measure of light, not related in anyway
|> to ASA/ISO (ie. for a given EV the exposure will change as one changes the
|> ASA on a light meter).  
|> 
|> The reason I'm asking is I have an OLD Vivitar light meter.  When this meter
|> is set to EV 1 the exposure reading is always 1 sec. @ f 1.0 no matter what
|> the ASA setting.  I believe this is wrong.  Or is it ME that is confussed?

Right, wrong -- who's to say?  :)

The EV system was intended to let you compute exposure without thinking
about film speed.  EV 1 gives you f/1 at 1 second for a specific quantity
of light that is based on the film speed.  When the film speed setting
is changed, the amount of light it takes to get EV 1 will change, but
the exposure will still be f/1 at 1 second.

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com

"We're seeing Buicks the size of prominences!"
From: rajiv@hilltop.mitre.org (Rajiv Kohli)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Mailing list for Minolta or Minolta 7000 in specific
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:58:36 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA


Is there a mailing list for the Minolta AF series 7000 +
if there is one , how do I get onto one?

Thanks
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs)
Subject: Re: a question about Velvia
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:05:14 GMT

In article <3097@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.212838.6467@javelin.sim.es.com= rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs) writes:
>=In article <54570@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> larsenp@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Paul Larsen) writes:
>=>A while ago, I submitted some Velvia slides to a magazine in hopes of getting
>=>them published.  The slides were recently returned to me with an unsatisfactory
>=>reason as to why they won't publish them.  They told me that they prefer 
>=>Kodachrome because it reproduces much better than Velvia. ..........Why is
>=>there a seeming bias against Velvia and for Kodachrome?  
>=
>=The reason, I believe, can be expressed in one word:  Tradition.
>
>	I agree.  After I shot a brick of K25 in the Grand Canyon, I'll
>never go back to Kodakchrome.  Everything look so pale, even with
>a polarizer on, there was hardly any color in the K25.  I'll stick
>with Fujichrome for scenics and Ektachrome for anything with skin.
>Does Velvia come in bulk yet?  As nice as it is, $10 a roll is just
>a tad too much.
>
Yes, Velvia is available in bulk.  I bought a roll from B&H for $100 (and 
shared it with my friends).  Current ads show Adorama at $100 and B&H at
$95 (that's about $5/36-exp roll.  Better than $10!  I haven't seen the
bulk rolls in any local store yet.

Ron Speirs, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis)
Subject: Re: printing contrasty slides
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:46:09 GMT

In <_0+mcpf.hamish@netcom.com> hamish@netcom.com (Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic) writes:
>I'd like to (loudly) second Donl's observation about printing from
>negatives here. Some of you may remember the longish thread I initiated

>Of course I've learned a lot from that debate (and Donl's contribution
>to it) - a lot of "pros' *do* use print film (especially people like

Indeed.  Photojournalists have all but abandoned slide film.  About
the only newspapers still using chrome are those whose production
equipment can't handle scanning negatives.
--
Al Goldis           alan-goldis@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: amg8408@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Avijit  Moitra)
Subject: A question about Archiever 630AF Flash ?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:20:27 GMT

Has anyone used the Archiever 630AF flash for Minolta Maxxum 7000 or any
other camera ?  I would like to get some feed back about the performance 
of this flash, as I am considering bying one.
Is there any other better flash of similar strength (90+ Guide No.) that
will work with Minolta Maxxum 7000 (not the I series) ?  An e-mail or a
posting will be highly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: parikh@sirocco.eng.hou.compaq.com (Vijay Parikh)
Subject: Flash Photography
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:31:04 GMT

I am new to this group so please pardon me if this is a FAQ.  Also, I am
an amateur photographer so please advise me you experts.  I have a Minolta
X-700 with manual shutter speed, exposure, and aperture control.

In a hall (size 25x25 feet), what would be the best shutter speed and aperture
combination?  I have been using F8 (aperture) and 60 (shutter speed) when I takepictures during night time (requiring flash).  Does my aperture have to be
smaller if I want to take picture of something which is about 10-15 feet away?
Can I simply use P mode (programmed mode) with F22 (minimum aperture) for the
same scenario and achieve the same results?  Waht would be the maximum range
of my flash with F22 selected?

BTW, I use 100 ASA film.  Any help or tips would be really appreciated.

Thanks in advance!
From: gt6692b@prism.gatech.EDU (ROBERTSON, SCOTT L.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: B&W enlarger advice
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:16:45 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

I am in the market for a decent entry-level enlarger. I will be printing
black and white 35mm. Could anyone give me some suggestions about what
equipment would be good for a beginner? How about the Beseler Cadet or Cadet II,
or would it be wiser to invest a bit more in a better quality enlarger? Thanks
in advance.

		-Scott Robertson


-- 
Robertson, Scott L.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt6692b
ARPA: gt6692b@prism.gatech.edu
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: E-6 in Jobo
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:17:58 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Robert Claeson writes:

>Now, was it the Kodak Hobby-Pac that didn't include a stabilizer at all?

The JOBO E-6 kits don't.

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: accwai@math.uwaterloo.ca (Andy Wai)
Subject: Re: ENLARGING 35mm/Med.format/other
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:46:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.183051.7152@stsci.edu> levay@stsci.edu (Zoltan Levay) writes:
>[...]
>I'm afraid I have to rise to the bait, at great personal risk of
>flame-attack, and speaking strictly as another non-"professional".

Same here.

>[...]
>Nevertheless, I would like to dispell the currently fashionable notion
>that it is *impossible* to make enlargements from small-format images.
>As evidence, I suggest the photographs and writings of one Galen
>Rowell, who uses exclusively 35mm (as far as I know).  I have seen
>enlargements of Rowell's pictures that were at least 20x30 inches (I
>know that's not big by some standards) that I would consider much
>better than acceptable.

A few months back, I had a chance to look at one of his books Art of
Adventure.  The smaller images look really nice.  By comparison, the
two page spreads (and there are lots of them in the book) are really
disappointing.  They look grainy, unsharp and washed out.  Then early
this month I saw a number of his wall size murals at Ameriflora in
Columbus Ohio.  They are nice from 15 feet away.  Get up to about 6,
7 feet and you can already tell they're unsharp.  Get any closer and
your left with blobs of color.  As far as I'm concerned, this detracts
a lot from what he's trying to say.

The guy can make great images, no doubt about that, but he has chosen
to ignore the technical limitation of his gear and make big blowups.
That's really too bad since there are people (David Muench, e.g.) who
do similar thing in large format and Rowell's stuff don't look too hot
against such competition.

Andy Wai

P.S. At the other end of the scale we have Howard Bond who has a big
     couch in front of one of his 20x24 hanging on the wall.  It's
     there so people can't look at the print up close.  "It's from a
     small negative [i.e. 4x5 -ed], it's unsharp," he said...
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:33:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <23349@alice.att.com>, by ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig):
> In article <1992Jul28.131830.1273@hemlock.cray.com> dtj@caffeine.cray.com (Dean Johnson) writes:
> 
>> Not to mention that the "amateur" is *generally* at an equipment disadvantage.
>> I don't know of my ascending amateurs that can afford a 600mm/f2.8 lens!
> 
> I'll bet a lot of them can afford to rent one.

Rent?  Where?  How?  Please give specific details.  Thanks.
From: x89marenger@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: <None>
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:01:13 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University



I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF ANYONE HAS EXPERIENCE OR HEARD ANYTHING(GOOD OR BAD)
ABOUT NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF PHOTOGRAPY.  THEY SENT ME INFORMATION AND IT DOES
LOOK INTERESTING!  ANY INFORMATION WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

THEIR OFFER IS $498, THEY LOWERED THE COST OF THE COARSE $200.  THIS OFFER IS
GOOD UNTIL JULY 31.  IS IT WORTH IT?
From: jxt@calmasd.Prime.COM (Jawahar Tembulkar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Pentax SMC-A teleconverters....
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:20:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Computervision, San Diego, CA


I have tried to use a Tokina 2X converter with a Pentax SMC-A 50mm
f1.7 lens.  The results left a lot to be desired.  The contrast in
particular was terrible.  I am wondering if the Tokina converter is
supposed to be used with longer lenses ( e.g. 200 mm ).  I have read
someplace that some teleconverters have optimum use focal length
ranges.

Has anybody tried using a teleconverter from Pentax ( or third party )
for a 50 mm lense ?  What was the quality of results ?  Perhaps I
just have a bad teleconverter.  [ BTW, anybody wish to part with a
Pentax SMC-A teleconverter ? ]

Regards,


Jawa



-- 
* Statutory Disclaimer : These are merely my views.	*
* Jawahar M. Tembulkar, Computervision, R & D, 		*
* 9805 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA, 92121, USA.	*
* UUCP : uunet!calmasd!jxt	voice : (619) 587-3078	*
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 4"x5" enlarger or 6x7 enlarger : questions (Jobo, De Vere)
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:25:49 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

donl mathis writes:

>Many of what I consider to be the best prints, including consideration
>of sharpness, have been made with diffuse light.  For example, almost
>all of Ansel Adams prints, and those made by everyone who came after
>him, were made with diffuse light.  

Not quite everyone.  I was interested to learn that Ray McSavaney,
whose work I have come to think of as being *at least* technically
on a par with that of John Sexton and esthetically more pleasing to me,
uses a condenser enlarger.  This came up in his workshop when someone
made a disparaging comment about condenser enlargers ...  :-)

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.                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:28:27 EDT
From: <SPW103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Olympus XA ( was Re: Contax T2 )
 <84090@netnews.upenn.edu> <PHR.92Jul22171055@soda.berkeley.edu>
 <1992Jul23.121315.8156@ohm.york.ac.uk>

Before everybody jumps on the flame war, just remember that there were many
different models of the Olympus XA made.  I personally don't know much of
anything about the line, but I do know that some of the models are considered
to be top-notch, with really nice lens quality.  These models fetch several
hundred dollars on the used market, i believe.  The other models were
are considered to be of mediocre quality.  So, I imagine both the person who
thought the lens quality was good, and the person who thought it wasn't so good
were both right.


                          -Stephen Walker
                           spw103@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo