HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Film "FAQ"
Date: 15 Oct 92 09:14:24 GMT

In <1bha8oINN6hi@roche.csl.sri.com> abochann@cisco.com (Alex Bochannek) writes:

>Hi there!

>Well, I'm just starting to catch up with all the old articles here and wonder
>one thing: Why are you guys out there always fighting these, "my film is
>better than yours"-war? I mean I use films from Kodak, Fuji and Agfa 
>depending on speed and motive and I am very pleased with all the material I
>use. Anyway, I think a good idea might be, if we post here something on a 
>regular base, that could be FAQ-like on this topic. So, what I'd like you
>guys to just send me soem email with what film you use, what for, why and
>why you chose this material over another. Let's limit it to 35mm b/w and
>color print and slides (and b/w slides if you wish). I will then summarize
>what is out there and why people do or don't use it. Good idea?

Sounds good.  One idea (might not be good) is to have a list of films and
a list of columns.  The columns would contain the number of "points" for a
particular film in a particular category.  For example, if someone thinks
NHG is great for wedding photography, they could rate it a "10" on that
column.  If they think Ektapress 1600 is too grainy, they could give it
a "0" (actually Ektapress 1600 isn't bad for ISO1600.  No flames please!
:-).

This makes it easier to summarize.  It's hard to summarize a bunch of
qualitative comments.

Every so often, film tests come out in the popular photo rags.  If one of
them is deemed reliable, some of that data could be useful too.  At the
very least, the full name, and the abbreviated name should be in a table
so people don't get lost when other people start throwing code designations
around.

If someone can explain how to read the graphs on the Fuji data sheets, that
might be nice to include in the film FAQ too.

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
From: ray@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (william c ray)
Subject: in-camera ciba photos...
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:29:08 GMT

David Jacobson writes... 
>>If you just stick a piece of ciba in the camera you will
>>get a mirror image.  You would have to rig up some kind of rigid
>>mirror in front of the camera to add a compensating reversal.
>>
>>  -- David Jacobson
>>
and I write...
>Ummm, think again David... remember that it is reversed both horizontaly and
>verticaly.  Now, even if it was a problem, you'd need a rather interesting
>mirror setup to do the double reversal... On the other hand, consider the
>fact that the image _is_ reversed both verticaly and horizontaly... Now take
>a piece of paper, and holding it face up, rotate it 180 degrees.  Notice
>that it is now reversed both verticaly and horizontaly.  Do you need a 
>mirror to correct the image?
>
 to which David (in email) replies...

>When a lens focuses an image on rear-viewed ground glass or on film
>that can be viewed from the rear, it just rotates the image 180
>degrees.  But when then surface is solid and viewed from the side of
>the impinging light, a mirror image effect also takes place that no
>amount of rotating will solve.  I suggest you try it for yourself.

>  -- David Jacobson


To which I reply...

...oops... damn do I feel dumb now.  Of course you're right.  My
most humble apologies.

Will Ray
ray@cis.ohio-state.edu
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: AGFA, Fuji, Kodak or ?
Date: 12 Oct 92 08:58:03 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Oct5.201019.19674@adobe.com>, usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:

> This is hearsay, since I don't use Agfa film; but I've
> heard it said that Agfa's quality control isn't that good.

Consider it hearsay. I've found Agfa's QC to be very good. The
results are very consistent, actually more consistent than what
I get with Kodak's products. Agfa's colour rendition is the most
neutral of all the films I've used, but they are a bit grainier
than Kodak's and Fuji's.

-- 
------------------------------ END OF MESSAGE ------------------------------
Robert Claeson                Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                         robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                             CEO: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com:dg-smtp
S-164 93 KISTA                     Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
Sweden                             Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: kbb0@harvey.gte.com (Kevin Burke)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: XP2
Summary: Generally improved...
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:16:13 GMT

In article <31790@goofy.Apple.COM>, kanner@Apple.COM (Herbert Kanner) writes:
> Can anyone tell me what the differences are between XP1 and XP2? I
> would be interested in hearing about differences perceived by users and
> differences alleged by the manufacturer.

Hans Dietrich wrote a long article in Darkroom and Creative Camera
Techniques a little while ago about XP1/XP2. He points out that XP2 has
a longer straight-line section of its characteristic curve and the grain
of an ISO 100 film. (Don't know if XP1 could claim this.) A longer while
ago, Ctein and Blaker wrote up a review of XP2 in Darkroom Photography.
One big area of improvement that they found was significantly increased
accutance and raw resolution. (Something like 90 lp/mm, contrast
unknown.) In another issue of Darkroom Photography they did a "400 speed
film shoot-out" with XP2, T-Max, Delta, Agfa, etc. They printed up the
results and solicited opinions from photog and non-photog types. I
recall that XP2 was marginally prefered by most. Apparently the increase
in accutance is noticable and folks liked the 'grainless' mid-to-light
grays. 

After having played with this film for a year now, it's rendition is
different from regular silver negatives but useful all the same.

Regards, Kevin
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Electronic flashes, info for RSN article
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:15:59 GMT

At the request of David J, I am preparing a series of posts on electronic
flashes... Anyone with info that is of interest or amusement that could be
included is invited to mail... The Caltech mongo cop-zapper is one that
comes to mind :-) Anonomous or acredited at your choice.

Pt 1: general
Pt 2: SCR/thyristor control
Pt 3: Other odds and sods.

Brand/model specific info would be of great help and info on SCA300. Canon I
have. others invited. Hopefully this could become a FAQ/flash list/review
regular in time.

~Paul
From: mandayrv@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Atilla the Hun)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: How is the light different at dawn and dusk?
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:08:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucunix.Bw7tuy.C3D
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <1992Oct16.062002.15377@truevision.com> frank@truevision.com (Frank Loffel) writes:
>Hello
>
>Is there a substantial difference in the quality of light at dawn and dusk, or
>are they basically equivalent with reversed timing and direction of light?
>

From my experience, yes. But then again, it is not as substantial as I think
you believe. 

As far as I can make out, the light at dusk has more of an orange shift than
the light at dawn. One of the primary reasons, in my opinion, is this.
The atmosphere tends to become quite ionized during the daytime due to all
the sunlight. Ionized air has a higher capacity to absorb light waves
at the uv end of the spectrum. This causes an orange shift in the light at
dusk. However at dawn the air is not ionized as strongly and hence more blue
light is present. Another cause, as you have rightly pointed out, is the
presence of atmospheric pollutants which have a similar affect on the light
absorbing capacities of the atmosphere.


>Is there any other magic that allows to take a certain photograph only at dawn
>or dusk?

Sorry, cant help you there. Other netters may have more info on this.


>-- 
>-- Frank Loffel, Truevision, Inc., uunet!epicb!frank frank@truevision.com :-) 
-- 
ramanand@pumpkin.ece.uc.edu
From: Ed.Sukach@f173.n324.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Kodak Ektacolor Paper
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 06 Oct 92  11:11:00

Just restocked my supply of Ektacolor Porta paper (mainly because of the 
label: Read Notice Enclosed) and I'm wondering: 
 
I have had trouble using the original (Type 2818) with random streaks of 
increased density appearing occaisionally, and I have not been able to 
isolate the cause. 
 
I use a JOBO CPP2 processor and Photocolor RA (Master Class) chemicals. 
I have spent a LOT of time methodically tracking every step and condition 
(safelight / without safelight etc.), and varying pre-soak, adding water 
rinse / stop bath between developer etc. with no success. 
 
The notice enclosed reads, 
 
"In a continuing effort to communicate better with our customers, we are 
providing the following information. KODAK EKTACOLOR PORTA II Paper / 
type 2839 incorporates an improvement in the upper-scale curve shape over 
KODAK EKTACOLOR PORTRA PAPER / Type 2818. EKTACOLOR PORTRA II Paper 
features richer blacks, increased shadow detail, greater sharpness, more 
saturated colors and greater exposure latitude. 
These improvements build on the features of Type 2818 paper: improved 
reproduction of highlights and flesh tones, cleaner whites, and an 
increase in red speed which permits shorter exposure times. 
You may notice that the color of unprocessed EKTACOLOR PORTA II Paper is 
different from that of Type 2818 paper. No speed change is associated with 
this paper. 
These product improvements provide professional labs and photographers 
with the sharpest, cleanest portrait paper ever manufactured by Kodak." 
 
Other than the somewhat contradictory "increase in red speed which permits 
shorter exposure times" and "no speed change is associated with this paper" 
. . . Shorter exposure times with no speed change? . . c'est incredable, 
and the reasoning behind increasing color saturation in a portrait paper 
. . (reduced saturation is why I use Agfa Portra film), . . . what gives? 
Could my random gray streaking have something to do with this change? 
Have there been any changes in Ektacolor Supra or Ultra? 
 
BTW, I really like the shorter processing times with the RA papers, but 
I'm wondering about the availability of Kodak RA processing chemistry - 
I've only been able to obtain Besseler (Tetenal) and Photocolor. 
Anthing form Kodak coming in the near future? 
 
 
... OFFLINE 1.36 * Tales from the Dark Slide... 
---
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Outdated Kodachrome (re: Freezing Film)
From: swayzed@brandonu.ca
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:56:03 CST
Reply-To: swayzed@brandonu.ca
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: world
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
Keywords: Kodachrome Outdated Freezing
Summary: How long will Kodachrome last once it is outdated

I have stumbled across a drug store which has some outdated Kodachrome at a 
steal of a price. They are selling it for $9.99 (CDN$) per 36 exposure roll 
(processing included). It expired 07/91. What are the chances of this film
still providing good slides with relatively accurate colour. In other words,
no obvious colour shifts. It has been stored on the shelf, unrefrigerated, but
the temp in the store wouldn't be above 20 C. I have bought one roll and intend
to test it out. If it works out well I may buy up the remaining lot and toss it
in the freezer.

I would appreciate hearing of any experiences with outdated Kodachrome. I have 
heard the Kodachrome is essentially a Black and White film with the colour dyes
being added during processing. Does this affect the longevity of the film?

Thanks,

David


-- 
 
David Swayze        | SWAYZED@BrandonU.CA    | Reading furnishes the mind only
Brandon University  | Canada (pokey) Post:   | with materials of knowledge; it
Brandon, Manitoba   | 56 Wilnor Bay          | is thinking which makes what we
Canada              | Brandon, MB, R7B 3H1   | read ours.           John Locke
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Sam Neal <sjn1@cornell.edu>
Subject: Mail Order Developing: Any Suggestions?
X-Xxdate: Fri, 16 Oct 92 23: 24:55 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: sjn1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:19:46 GMT

     I'd like some information on mail order developing houses
regarding comparative prices, quality, reliability, and speed. I'd
also like any feedback on whether using mail order developing houses
is a bad idea or not. I've had good luck with Clark in D.C., but their
B&W printing is less than ideal.

     If this is mentioned elsewhere, my apologies. I didn't see
anything in the FAQ file or recent postings. Thanks in advance...

Sam Neal <sjn1@cornell.edu>
From: antonsen@hpcndaw.CND.HP.COM (Tim Antonsen)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:12:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: How do you pronounce Leica? [Actually, Nikon]
Organization: HP Network and System Management Division
Newsgroups: rec.photo


"Leica leica burnin' honka luv." - E. Presley

Oh wait, this is rec.PHOTO, not rec.HUMOR. Sorry ...

-- Tim
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Press Camera Questions...........................
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:59:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Oct6.221738.1021@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.004256.541@craycos.com>, sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>|>There was a 1/1000 sec LEAF shutter available for the Super - that's one of the
>|>reasons why the FP shutter was dropped, I thought. It's a pretty neat piece of
>|>work - it couples to the electric release on the body. I have *no* idea how accurate
>|>it is, since I've never owned one.
>I've never seen a 1/1000 of a second leaf shutter.  Even today, the fastest
>commericially made leaf shutters just go up to 1/500 (copal/seiko/prontor #0). 

Well, they've got one for sale at my friendly, local camera store. 
I spent about an hour fiddling with the thing a couple of weeks ago.
I've also seen one advertised for sale in Shutterbug (last month).

PS: Rollei sells a 1/800th electronically timed leaf shutter for some of their
medium format cameras. The blades are some sort of composite (carbon fiber?).

>The "electric" lens board is neat (I've got one).  But it's only electrical
>connections are the bi-post flash connections.  The shutter is tripped
>mechanically from a solinoid built into the front standard that grabs a tang on
>the lensboard.  This in turn, pulls down an adjustable rod which trips the
>shutter.

Not in the case of this 1/1000 sec. leaf shutter. There are two wires feeding
into the shutter mechanism to actuate it. It also has a mechanical release
on the shutter itself, but there's no connection from the lensboard to it.
The mechanical release *does* work, though. The cocking mechanism is kind of
interesting, too - there isn't a lever, instead there's a lens barrel extending
forward from the lens. You cock the shutter by twisting it ~45 degrees.
Never seen anything quite like it.
 
>|>My Speed has no swings or tilts, only front rise and a drop bed. I have seen
>|>Crowns with tilts.

>Look on your speed, two small knobs at either side of the base of the front
>standard.  

There are no knobs there.

>You may have to press down on sheet metal springs right under them
>in order to get they to go.  If it has a drop bed than it has to have some
>tilt to compensate and bring the lensboard parallel to the film plane.  You
>should also get some swing and shift by loosening the locking lever on the
>front standard and then depressing another wide sheet metal spring underneath.

Nope. The only purpose for the drop bed on this guy is to get it out of the
picture when you're shooting with a wide-angle. Absolutely no tilts. It does
have shifts, though. 

Steve
From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: MIDO Holders, A qualification....
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:50:54 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure

dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) writes:
>In the past I have strongly reccomended the MIDO 4x5 holder system.  I
>would like to qualify that - reccomendation still holds if you have a
>darkroom or REALLY LARGE bag to load them in - Last weekend I had to
>load using an average sized changing bag, and they really were too
>long for it.

How much room would one need (i.e. how long are we talking about here).

In my changing bag, I can fit a Jobo 2500 series tank, the sheet film
reel loader, two sheet film reels, and a box of previously-exposed film.
It's not *spacious*, but I get by.

Geoff

-- 
Geoff Allen          \  Computers are useless.  
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \  They can only give you answers.
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \		-- Pablo Picasso
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Pentax PZ-10 v.s. EOS Rebel II
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:27:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Oct15.202745.1257
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Oct14.213050.26125@tvnews.tv.tek.com> toddc@spot.tv.tek.com (Todd Carlson) writes:
>
>Okay, how about this one... I am looking into my first REAL 35mm that will
>actually let me play with shutter speed, f-stop, etc., and I have  narrowed
>it down to the PZ-10 and the Rebel II.  The local shop has offered packages
>with each that include 5 year warranties, but there is a $40.00 price
>difference.
>
>Right now I am leaning towards the Canon, but I would welcome any opinions
>from anyone with experience with either.  (I have even been looking into
>future needs...lenses, options, etc.)

Go for the Canon, better lenses, and in my opinion a beter overall camera.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: bbarton@Ingres.COM (Brian Barton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Wein Infrared Slave Triggers
Keywords: Slave
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:27:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: pony.1992Oct7.182701.5191
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

Does anyone else own a Wein PS-500-2 or 500-2W or 500-4 that can help me with
a slight technical problem with my slave trigger?

I routinely use my Wein channeled slave trigger to fire my flash off camera
by mounting the sending unit on my Nikon F3HP or Leica M4-P hot-shoe and 
attaching the receiver to the hot shoe of my off-camera flash.

Then I hold my flash off-camera and then I fire the shutter-release on the 
camera.  

The problem is that the flash only fires about 70% of the time.  I know that I
don't have any short in the wire that connects the receiving unit to the
flash, but I don't understand what is happening.

My batteries are fresh in the sending unit and I'm not in any infrared 
"interference" zones.  The problem happens regardless of the environment in
which I'm shooting.  

It also seems that the flash usually does not fire if you wait longer than 30 
seconds between pictures.  Photos taken in rapid succession usually don't
'cause this problem.

Often when moving the Wein sending unit from one of my camera's flash shoes to 
the other it almost always prevents the first "click" of the shutter from 
firing the flash unit.  

Has anyone had any similar experience with this?  I've had my equipment checked
by Wein in Los Angeles and they found no problems.

Any wisdom?

Thanks.

Brian Barton
bbarton@ingres.com
From: peb@siesoft.co.uk (Paul Bentley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: XP2
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:24:24 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems Ltd.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

I am still using up my XP1 stock so I have not yet tried XP2. However,
I have read the XP1 and XP2 technical info sheets from Ilford. From memory,
there is a suggestion that XP1 gave slightly higher quality when developed
with XP1 chemistrty over C41, whereas XP2 gives equivalent results with either.
(It's interesting that the current XP1 kits claim to process C41 films, but
with no memtion of whether the results are any different to other C41 kits.)

Ilford may also have introduced XP2 as a marketing ploy to persuade more photo
labs to process it in their C41 lines. I understand that there were problems
here, the justifications for which never interested me as I have always
processed XP1 myself with the XP1 kit.

With regard to scratching of XP1, as suggested by Stacey Campbell, yes
I too have experienced scratching with XP1. My problem was with XP1 120
film, in a brand new Bronica ETRS. There were lots of scratches all in the
direction of film travel. I experimented with two film backs and other films.
The problem only persisted with XP1, but in both backs. I sold the ETRS
and bought some Nikons and have never had the problems with 35mm XP1. I suspect
that the XP1 may be slightly more prone to scratching but I think that most
of the fault lay with the Bronica film backs.

paulb@siesoft.co.uk
Paul Bentley, Siemens Nixdorf, Bracknell, Berkshire, England.
From: Ron.Gage@altern8.mi.org (Ron Gage)
Sender: FredMail@altern8.mi.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Bulk Color Film Wanted
Date: 08 Oct 92  22:02:00 EST

Hi all:
    I am looking for a source of bulk (100') 35mm color print film other
    than Kodak VHS/VHP.  Would prefer to get Ektar 100 or Ektar 1000.
    Expired film if fine if well kept (refridgerated) and not too old
    (less than 6 mos).
Thanks:
Ron Gage
Sysop, The Adult File Cabinet BBS    (517) 792-4680 - 2 lines


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Agfa Multicontrast
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:11:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.161242.17342@sys.sweden.dg.com>, robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:
> Has anyone tried these products? A dealer I visited today said that
> the Multicontrast developer performed better for most RC papers
> than other developers. The paper is also very good and significantly
> better than Ilford's Multigrade paper. The new Kodak polycontrast
> paper should be something extra, he also said.
> 

The paper yes, developer, no. Ilford is my 'normal' paper. I haven't noticed
any great 'improvement' in the Agfa. It may be an improvement for some negs
though. 

~Paul
From: duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: minolta xi lenses
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:05:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsj.1992Oct15.190525.20265
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <yw1.718672905@Ra.MsState.Edu> yw1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Yin Wang) writes:
>
>	I bought a minolta 9xi from a mail order shop. When I also placed ordersfor two minolta xi series lenses (xi 28-80 f3.5 & xi 80-200 f4.5), the salesman
>told me the minolta xi lenses have problem in manuel focusing and the lenses
>are slow and the quality of lense optics are not good. So he suggest me to buy
>a set of Tokino lenses (AF 28-70 f2.8 & 70-210 f4.0). He said these two lenses
>are high quality and fast. The only thing I am loose he said is the power zoom
>and widerview features provided by xi camaras. Since I am not fimilar with
>both xi and Tokino lenses, I bought his words and took the Tokino lenses. The
>Tokino lenses are 25% more expensive than Minolta xi lenses.
>	Any thoughts ?
>
>Thanx.

thoughts?  indeed...never buy something on impulse, especially
from some mail order shop over the phone.  know what you want
and stick to it.  not to say this wasn't a better choice...but
the fact is that only you can decide what you want and why.

luckily, the 28-70/2.8 is great.

duane