HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: teplitz@optilink.UUCP (Ron Teplitz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Tamron Adaptall Mount Problem
Keywords: Lens, Mount, Zoom
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:13:40 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

I just bought a Nikon FA body. To go with it, I just bought a new Tamron
35-135 zoom. The Tamron Adaptall mount has those funny little coupling
levers on either side that are supposed to engage in notches in the lens
and stay there. Well, the one on the left side of my lens comes disengaged
when the aperture ring is rotated to a smaller aperture (higher number) and stays disengaged when it is rotated back the other way. The problem with that is
the position of that coupling lever is how the metering system knows what
the aperture is set at. If the aperture ring moves, but the lever does not,
the meter reading doesn't change. If the lever moves, the meter reading changes
whether the aperture ring moves or not. The maximum misalignment is three
clicks, or 1 1/2 f-stops. Is this common with these mounts? I know someone
with one of these on an Olympus who has never seen this, so it isn't universal.
Any stories or words of wisdom out there?



-- 
Ron Teplitz - Tech/Tech Writer
Work:	DSC, 1310-C Redwood Wy, Petaluma 94954; 1-707-792-7294
UUCP:   uunet!optilink!teplitz	Internet: teplitz@optilink.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: stb@dasher.uucp (25157-becker)
Subject: Tamron 35-105 F2.8 AF
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 15:36:14 GMT
Keywords: Camera Lens

In answer to the net question by Kevin Burke,  I tried this lens at the 91
PHOTO show in NYC.  They had a prototype model. It was on a NIKON 80008s and
seemed to be working fine.  I liked it's size, etc. 

I have looked at alternatives for my NIKON 8008, especially the NIKON 35-105mm
lens but hate the variable apperature limitations of the NIKON lens.  I do
considerable studio flashwork and really do not like guessing at the 
Fstop. 

I called Tamron to ask when the AF version of the lens would be available --
they said in late April.    

One thing to think about, however, is the long term compatability with
future NIKON lens especially since the TAMRON lens will be selling for
about $500 to $600 (NYC prices). 
From: dlow@pollux.svale.hp.com (Danny Low)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:46:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for you!)
Organization: Hewlett Packard CPCD, Sunnyvale CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

>(Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) 
>On the other hand, copyright laws protect the photo, not the 1's and 0's 
>placed in a file.  Strictly speaking scanning is not a duplication of the
>orginal. 

This is making a duplication of the original image just as scanning the
photo to make plates for printing in a magazine is duplication. Legally
posting a scanned image on a computer for people to download is
publication under the copyright laws. 

			   Danny Low
    "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You"
	   Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley
	     HP NPCD   dlow@pollux.svale.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: michelle@play.esd.sgi.com (Michelle Boyd)
Subject: compact camera with macro
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:20:59 GMT

I'm looking for a compact SLR camera that has
marco capabilities.  It would be great if it 
could go fully manual as well as fully automatic.

Someone in a camera store showed me an Olympus is-1
and a chinon (?) and said that these were the only
choices.  What's the scoop on these cameras?  What
other cameras are available?

I want this camera for my vacation.  I'm leaving April 17.
Please send me email michelle@esd.sgi.com.

thanks,
michelle
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: monta@image.mit.edu (Peter Monta)
Subject: Extended and point objects in astrophotography
Organization: MIT Advanced Television Research Program
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 08:20:09 GMT

I've been puzzling for awhile over the difference between
extended and point objects, especially the point at which one
turns into the other.  It seems clear that the exposure
resulting from an object spanning a large part of the field
depends only on focal ratio, and that resulting from a star
only on entrance pupil diameter; this is pointed out in several
nice books I've been reading:  Liller and Mayer's "The Cambridge
Astronomy Guide", Covington's "Astrophotography for the Amateur",
and Wallis and Provin's "A manual of advanced celestial
photography".

Fine.  At what point does a small-object exposure stop depending
on focal ratio?  The only remaining quantity is the spot size
of the optics/film system, so the answer must be "on the order
of spot size", but why is this?  What is really happening?

Finally, the question I'd like to be able to answer is "do I
improve my SNR for stars by stopping down (ignoring decrease
in aberration, and assuming equal exposure)?"  I shoot in a very
light-polluted location, and any extra margin is welcome
(I'm also using a red filter, which helps considerably).

Thanks,
Peter Monta   monta@image.mit.edu
MIT Advanced Television Research Program
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Cambridge - watch out!
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:51:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr17.023258.16589@mdd.comm.mot.com>, clay@mdd.comm.mot.com (Richard Clay) writes:
> It may depend on what you order.
> 
> My photo instructor recomended one of their telephoto lenses (a 
> Cambron lense, ie. made for Cambridge).  I ordered it with no 
> hassles or problems, and have been very satisfied with it.
> 

Tell us more. What was the lens, and was it any good? I once used their
500/f8 lens (4 elements, preset aperture). It was fair, but nothing I
would recommend. I have one of their right angle finder attachments (It
was a present - I would not deal with Cambridge). Again it is fair, but
nothing special. It did arrive OK, so maybe they actually have the "Cambron"
stuff in stock. The same may not be true for other brands.


===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lab Screw-Up!
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:41:05 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

The customer's normal agreement with any photo lab (usually found in fine
print on the paperwork, and nowadays probably justifiable as "normal
business practice" even if not written down) is that the lab's liability
is limited to the value of the film and processing -- NOT the value or
cost of shooting the pictures.

It would be almost impossible to run a lab under any other conditions, because
a single equipment breakdown would then be able to bankrupt you.

Still, somebody should look into the idea of "insured processing" where the
lab assumes a much higher liability (say up to $1000) in cases of clear
errors (not just differences of opinion about how a print should look).
Of course this would cost more.

-- 
==========================================================================
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.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs)
Subject: Re: B&W film reversal processing
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:53:06 GMT

In article <108@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs) writes:
>: This would certainly be worth a try.  You would need to add some Sodium
>: Thiocyanate (~2 g/L) as a silver solvent to produce clear highlights.
>
>OK, so I can try that along with the Technidol concentrate packets I just
>bought.  But what about development times?  This is something I am very
>confused about.  After the 1st developer, is the silver image the same
>density and contrast index as would be desired for a good B&W negative?

A "slide" needs to have a higher contrast to look good when projected than
a negative does.  That's why the contrast becomes such a problem when making
color prints directly from color slides.  But a high contrast, color-saturated
slide looks great when projected.
>
>Above, you say the 1st developer is an "ordinary, high-contrast" one.
>What do you mean by that?  (High contrast like D-76 or Kodalith? :-)

Higher contrast than D-76, but certainly not as high as Kodalith.
>
>: The following is a formula for pictorial Tech Pan processing from about 1979:
>: [...] 
>: This is for the First Developer.  The remainder of the step in the kit
>: should be OK.  Be sure to test and bracket widely to find the E.I.
>
>Thanks (!), but again, I still am missing development times...

When you do these kinds of experiments, you will have to do just that:
experiment.  Start with the recommended time for Tech Pan in Technidol, then
try +/- 25%.  Be sure to use strips of film with identical exposures.
>
>: >	3)  B&W reversal processing of E-6 films.  Well, why not -- C-41
>: >	    films too!
>: 
>: I think this is like spending dimes to get nickels.  E-6 films can be
>: reversed to get a positive B&W image, but remember that there isn't as much
>: silver in color films (since it is only a "catalyst" to get the dyes to
>: form) as there is in B&W films (where silver IS the image).
>
>Hmm, this still sounds interesting to me.  Perhaps this would work out ok if
>there were no thiocyanate in the 1st developer???
>
>: Since E-6
>: films are so much more expensive, why?
>
>Actually, I wasn't going to tell anyone, but since you asked, what I had
>in mind was Ektachrome Infrared.  It's different from Kodak's (B&W) High
>Speed Infrared, so it got me thinking...
>
Only one of the three layers in Ektachrome Infrared is sensitive to infrared
light - the cyan-producing layer.  The other two layers are sensitive to
visible light.  You could use a visible-light opaque filter (#87) to block
all visible light and expose only to IR.  Again, experiment.  This could
get expensive considering the price of Ektachrome IR.  :-(

>- Jay Ts
Ron Speirs, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Re:  broken field camera (was Re:  4 x 5 camera help)
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:34:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: odin.1992Apr13.023458.19609
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA


In article <2300040@hpgrla.gr.hp.com>, peterd@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Peter
Davidoff) writes:
|> 
|>   It's Hard to Focus w/o the Glass!
|>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When I broke the glass on the 8x10 Bender, I went to a hardware
store and bought a sheet of plexiglass, some picture-framing wire,
a few springs, and some emery paper.  I roughed up one side of the
plastic well enough to form an image on it, cut it to size by scoring
and cracking it, and it worked just fine until the replacement arrived.
It was actually quite transparent -- you could easily see into the back
of the camera -- but it was rough enough to form an image.

[Before I tried this scheme, it was suggested that I pick up the glass
at the glass shop, then go to someplace with a glass-bead blaster (gas
station?) and ask them to rough up one side.  If I had gone this route,
I would have had a couple of extra pieces of glass in case they wanted
to break.]

|>   I noticed that Howard had either 1/4" masonite or plywood
|>   against the glass, held on with large pieces of elastic.
|>   Probably not a bad idea.

Then I cut another piece of plexiglass a little bigger than the ground
glass, drilled holes in each corner, and used the picture wire and
springs to make stretchable loops on two sides.  The loops stretch over
some available camera part to hold the protector in place.

Ground glass protectors are highly recommended.  Is is Calumet or Zone
VI that sell them ready made?  It's not to hard to make your own,
though.

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bgbauer@watcgl.waterloo.edu (ben bauer)
Subject: Re: Verichrome Pan PROCESSING
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.192922.2937@tc.fluke.COM> strong@tc.fluke.COM (Norm Strong) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.180419.4565@news.cs.brandeis.edu> ylevy@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>}Hi,
>}
>}I recently bought an old brownie-type camera at a garage sale and it had
>}a roll of exposed Verichrome Pan 120 film in it.
>}
>}Can anyone suggest processing for this film?  How old can it be?
>
>You would develop someone else's film?  That's like climbing up on your
>roof with a pair of binoculars so you can peek into your neighbor's
>bedroom at night.  
>
>Shame on you!   :-)

Although it is a judgement call, I think the proper thing to do is
to return the film to the owners if possible.  If the garage sale was
local, simply give the film back, tell them it's unlikely that much
will turn out but there may be something of value to them.  If the
owners are untraceable then develop the film and see if there are any 
clues.  The images latent on that negative could be of personal value
to someone.  I think the WORST thing to do is discard it.
Now you're on the horns of a dilemma, shame if you do, shame if you don't.
All this for a $5 camera........
From: yoshi@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil (D M Yoshikami)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Poor Photofinishing Quality (Was: Non-C-41 Negatives)
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:04:28 GMT
Organization: National Naval Medical Center

In article <1992Apr1.023648.28823@news.Hawaii.Edu> tlee@mickey.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Timothy Lee) writes:
>     I need some info about cleaning DUST out of my ZOOM LENS.
>      the zoom lens that I have is a 70-210mm CANON AUTOFOCUS
>
>		It has some noticeable dust inside the lense..
>
>	How much would it cost to send it to the CLEANERS (repair 
>      shop) and get it cleaned internally..??  Also.. is there an
>      easy way to do it yourself? or is it too complicated.?

If it's a Zoom lens, DON'T PLAY WITH IT unless you KNOW without a SHADOW of a
doubt what you're doing.  It's far better to spend the extra $, let the camera 
shop clean it, and if they wreck it, THEY'll have to fix/replace it, not 
yourself.  Zooms have some extra adjustments and other chozzorai that you'll
probably not want to fool around with.  You'll probably also want the shop to
lubricate some of the moving parts as well as doing the cleaning.  What I've
seen happen occasionally is the cement between the elements goes funny.  Okay,
now THAT is a lot of trouble to leave to the shop.  This is not to say that
you can't clean some lenses yourself.  Most large format lenses I've worked with
you can unscrew and clean with whatever procedure you use to clean lenses with.
They are designed to come apart for that reason.  But you'll see this mostly
on makes such as Schneider, Caltar, or Rodenstock.  (Okay, to be specific, 
the front and back elements really unscrew from the shutter body and that's
about as far as you get with taking those bad boys apart!!!)  Personally, I'd
err on the side of caution when it comes to zoom lenses.

There are some lenses which have dry nitrogen pumped between the elements before
assembly so that the lens will not fog internally when temperatures change.  Of
course, if you fix it yourself, you allow moisture into the spaces between the
lens elements.  Not all camera repair shops will pump nitrogen into the lenses
and not all lenses have THIS feature.

Whatever you do, if the shutter is in the lens, don't ever take a shutter apart.
I made that mistake once.  Leave the delicate shutter to the shop.  Unless 
you have a lot of tools and the training, you'll never get it back together.
And calibrating and setting the shutter speed is a pain in itself... something
you'll never get right unless you have the tools.

DY :-)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
D M Yoshikami  :-) ;-) :-) | Internet: yoshikami@usuhsb.ucc.usuhs.nnmc.navy.mil
May the Forth be with you! | Bitnet  : yoshikami@usuhsb.bitnet
***  !!xob X*NU V METSYS T&TA eht ni renosirp dleh gnieb m`I  !pleH  !pleH  ***
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mlwang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mochun L Wang)
Subject: Re: Diff between OM XA and XA-2?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:20:56 GMT

>I've heard that the XA is a dandy little camera.  I have a chance to
>buy an XA-2.  Can someone fill me in on the differences between them?

>Thanks
>--
>Lyndon Swab     lswab@bnr.ca, (613) 763-7165, ESN 393-7165

XA focuses manually while the latter doesn't. 

Wang
From: TOM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: DEARDORFF FOR SALE
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:13:14 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

This camera is a wood constructed view camera, format 5x7.
Price $350.00 or best offer!
                                       Tom (408) 268-2955 Home
                                           (415) 926-3426 Work
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Tamron 35-105 F2.8 AF
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:44:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cello.1992Apr16.204425.1489
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Apr16.165135.24339@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
>| The word "continuous" needs clarification.  This could be
>| misinterpreted to mean that it reads out in real numbers with some
>| reasonable precision. In fact, the 8008 (and I assume the 8008s)
>| rounds to the nearest whole f stop.
>					-David Jacobson
>
>My N8008s DOES read out the effective aperture in real numbers.
>My aperture readings can be 3.2, 3.8, 4.2, ... Not confined to
>whole f/stops at all. I've never owned an N8008, but I assume
>it works the same way.
>			-Alan

I've gotten several messages about this.  I should have inserted
"except at full aperture" just after "In fact".

  -- David Jacobson
From: swansond@nextnet.csus.edu (Dennis Swanson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Shooting Neon Lights
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:27:13 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <167C3AE44.MSPERKO@kentvm.kent.edu> MSPERKO@kentvm.kent.edu (Mike Sperko) writes:
>Does anyone have experience shooting neon lights?  A friend of mine has asked
>me to photograph his beer sign collection.  These neon signs are hung on the
>wall of a finished rec room.  There will be some regular lighting but the signs
>pretty well light up the whole room (this guy has some really neat old beer
>signs).  Any recomendations about daylight vs. tungsten film? Filters?
>Exposures?
>Thanks.
>
>Mike Sperko

I'd suggest letting the signs be the only source of room light, and shoot a
few test shots to see what effect you like best. Last Sunday night I shot the
outside of a local shoe store, with large round windows outlined in incredible
red neon, and I seem to prefer the shots exposed just as my center-weighted
meter suggested. I used daylight film, Ektachrome 100HC rated at 80 or 64
(I'm still deciding) and a UV haze filter (unconsciously). I was trying for
strong contrast to make the color and shapes really stand out, and that's
exactly what I got. At +1 EV there was some flaring around the tubes and
the oval shapes weren't as well-defined. I didn't shoot any underexposed
frames. Good luck.

	Den

-- 
Dennis M. Swanson      aka "Night Hacker"       INTERNET: swansond@csus.edu
\  "Don't be glad when your enemy meets disaster, and don't rejoice when  /
 ) he stumbles.  The Lord will know if you are gloating, and he will not (
/  like it; and then maybe he won't punish him."  8^)  Proverbs 24:17,18  \
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Is there a cable shutter release for EOS 1000 (Rebel)?
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:57:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T


The release on the EOS camera line is simply an electrical switch. I once
talked with someone (Hi Doug...do you still have net access??) who had
fitted a wired remote switch to has EOS 10s by taking the camera apart and
wiring up a socket connected to the contacts on the shutter release.
Apparantly it worked fine. I am not sure I would want to try this without
the help of a repair manual to figure out how to get the camera apart and
back together again, but it can be done on the 10s. I'm sure the Rebel would
be no more difficult, but I'm not sure if I would have the guts to try it!

Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Tamron 35-105 F2.8 AF
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:24:38 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Apr14.184721.1470@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
>| I do considerable studio flashwork and really do not like guessing 
>| at the Fstop.
>		  -Becker
>
>The N8008s gives a continuous readout of the *actual* aperture,
>taking into account lens extension as well as the variable aperture
>of the 35-105/3.5-4.5. And isn't it true that lens extension needs
>to be considered even when using a lens with a constant maximum
>aperture? My 60/2.8 AF Micro loses 1-1/3 stops in going from
>infinity to close focus.
>			   -Alan

The word "continuous" needs clarification.  This could be
misinterpreted to mean that it reads out in real numbers with some
reasonable precision.  In fact, the 8008 (and I assume the 8008s)
rounds to the nearest whole f step.  I wish it would indicate in 1/3
stops.  Either 5.3, 5.6, 6.0 or 5.6-, 5.6, 5.6+ would be ok.  But
whole stops is too coarse.  (How do I suggest this to Nikon?)

Another possible misinterpretation is that it reads out the f stop
continuously in time.  But in fact the f-stop display is activated by
pressing the shutter button half way, and it times out after 8
seconds.  (Actually, you can activate the readout by pressing almost
any button on the top of the camera.  This can be used if you want to
avoid triggering autofocus.)

  -- David Jacobson

  
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: beatle@sentry.larc.nasa.gov (Teresa Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Question on EOS 10S and ELAN
Organization: NASA/Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:03:03 GMT

I have a 10S, and a 630, and I was under the impression that the 1 was the
pro camera, the 10S second in line, then the Elan and Rebel for lower end
photography. (Course I still haven't figured out what "lower end" is, but
Canon seems to like it.)

Teresa
Newsgroups: rec.photo,can.general,misc.legal
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: What is required to sell pictures?
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:07:53 GMT

In article <10417@ncrcan.Canada.NCR.CA>
	tnelson@ncrcan.Canada.NCR.CA (Tim Nelson) writes:

>I want to start a small business selling some of my hobby photos, but
>I wonder what the legal restrictions would be in selling pictures with
>other people in them.
>
>I have many pictures with identifiable faces, so I would like to know
>if there are restrictions on selling a picture of someone else.

It generally depends on the context.

Selling a picture to a newspaper of a "newsworthy" event does not
normally require releases. Photojournalism, by and large, can get by
without permission. (This is one of the reasons most rock concerts don't
allow cameras these days, because they can't prevent you from selling
photos you take there, or demanding compensation if you do.)

However, is the subject(s) of your photos were posed or set up in any way,
a release is definitely in order.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
              If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?