HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Subject: Re: Darkroom Equipment Questions
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:27:40 GMT


In article <1992Jul23.215024.17518@sco.COM>, staceyc@sco.COM (Stacey
Campbell) writes:

|> I use Oly OM 35mm camera equipment.  My darkroom will be a large
|> walk-in closet with power, ventilation, and no running water.  The
|> house is a rental, so I'm not interested in "modifications" to the
|> house to get a more usuable darkroom.  The kitchen is very close by.

You'll want to swing by the restaurant when they're not busy and ask if
you can have a couple of empty pickle buckets.  They buy lots of their
food in these nice, big, plastic buckets, and they're great for
carrying a bunch of water back and forth.  You can use one for hot and
one for cold if you need to tinker with temperature (which is rare in
black and white), and it would be nice to have one for a drain.

You realize, of course, that since Accidents Do Happen, your closet is
going to get a bit splashed before this is over...  :)

|> 2. I've got my eye on some second hand enlargers, would it be better to
|> get, say, a new Omega C700 from B+H in Pop Photo (I've had good luck
|> buying lenses and film from them)?

Depends.  I think a good, used enlarger is a reasonable thing to buy.
(I worry about used lenses and cameras.)  Take a look in Shutterbug;
a good source of used equipment.

|> 3. I think this is the list of the expensive bits (is it?);
|> 	[...]
|> 	- easel

Not too expensive.  Beseler makes some cheap borderless easels.

|> 4. Are these all the slightly less expensive bits?
|> 	- 4 trays (devel, stop, fix, wash)

Or wash in a dish pan, which holds more water is easier to slosh in.

|> 	- film and paper squeeges

Don't bother squeegeeing film.  For paper, you can use an old
windshield wiper if you want.

|> 	- clips for hanging drying film

Wooden clothespins on coathangers.  Use another clothespin at the
bottom for weight.

|> 	- graduate

Maybe a little one and a big one.  If I had to pick two, it would
be my 150mm and my 1200ml.

|> 	- jars for mixed chemicals

The kitchen section at your local variety store yields many shapes
and sizes of plastic containers with air-tight lids.

|> 	- proofing aid for easel

I don't proof much, but if you feel the need, you should be able to
make your own arrangements with a piece of glass.  Put some heavy
tape on the edges.  If you use clear negative sleeve sheets, you can
proof in the sleeves, and thus not have to mess with arranging them.
The quality is not terribly good, but they're workable.

|> 	- timer

Perhaps.  At the enlarger, use a watch or clock that goes "beep" once a
second when the alarm goes off.  I had a sophisticated volume control
for mine -- I threw it in the back of a drawer.  For prints, it
shouldn't be too hard to find a clock you can see with a little bit of
safelight.  Go to a garage sale, get a cheap clock, paint the face
black and the hands white.

|> 	- stirrer

Kitchen utensil.

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
From: monson@caviar.ECE.ORST.EDU (Tyrus Monson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Wanted: A light table or slide sorting recommendations
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:23:30 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis

In article <1992Jul23.144804.25723@ryn.mro4.dec.com> faust@bagels.enet.dec.com (Stephen R Faust) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul21.210941.19349@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes...
>>Assuming that a light table is the most practical way to go about this, I'm  
>>wondering if anyone has a light table they are willing to sell or can
>>recommend one.
>
>There are many on the market, but I have found the Logan light boxes work
>real well, are  color  and intensity corrected, and inexpensive.  I would
>also get one or  two  of  the  cheap  ($12  or so) sorters.  They are not
>corrected, use standard  house  bulbs, and will hold about 40 to 80 or so
>slides (depending on the model). 
>
>Sorting 2500 slides will  be  real tough on a small box.  Get the largest
>size you can afford, and  a  few  of  the  sorters.  Use the light box to
>check exposure and color balance, and  the  sorters to arrange the slides
>in groups/subjectstypes/etc..
>
  Pardon me for jumping into the discussion at this point, but a few
  thoughts entered my head since reading the original posting.

  I use a cheap Logan light box, as mentioned above, and it is very nice for
  the price. I think mine came closed to $18, and it uses a 60watt household
  light bulb. It folds to a very compact size for storage.

  On another tack: sorting 2400 slides is a big chore, and the original
  posting did not indicate whether or not a professional quality light
  box was going to be needed as part of an on-going photography enterprise.
  If it is just a matter of getting this bunch of slides inspected, selected,
  organized and stored, then may I suggest dispensing with the expense
  of a light box? There is a cheaper way.
  Sheets of milk glass, milk-colored acrylic sheet or sand blasted glass
  should be available in most communities for prices far less than the 
  cost of a light box. Buy a sheet in a convenient size, and span a pair
  of tables, chairs, boxes, stacks of books or what-have-you. Get one
  or more lights from around your home, put them under the glass (plastic)
  sheet and you are in business! The sheet can be stabilized against sliding 
  around with tape.
  Sort to your heart's content, and when the project is done, all you need
  to do is find a place to store that one thin sheet. Cheap!

  Just another idea for you to consider.
From: madler@vssad.enet.dec.com (Michael C. Adler)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Enlarger light sources
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:04:18 GMT
Reply-To: madler@vssad.enet.dec.com (Michael C. Adler)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


I'll let my curiosity get the better of me and probably start a
religious war.  What are the fundamental differences in both B+W
and color enlargements made with condensor, diffusion and cold
light sources?

I've read that many color heads use diffusion.  Is this simply a
space constraint or is there a more sophisticated reason?

Cold source advocates claim that these lights actually decrease
grain.  Given that grain is effectively the image how is it possible
to decrease grain without sacrificing sharpness?

Is the color temperature (or light spectrum) of cold sources suitable
for positive and negative color enlargements?

thanks,
-Michael
From: yee@mipgsun.mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: scratched negatives
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:41:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

pmt@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Tromovitch Philip) writes:
>I have some color negatives that I want to make 8"x10"s of, but 
>the negatives are scratched.

>There is minor scratching on the glossy side, and a deep scratch on
>the matt side.

The matte side is the emulsion side.  This is the side where the
information resides.  The other side is merely the backing.

>Is there any way to 'repair' the negatives before sending them 
>off for printing?

While it is impossible to repair the emulsion side completely
(information has been lost), it is possible to "average" in the
regions near the scratch.  Years ago I bought a small bottle of fluid
which purports to do this.  I never used it though.



-- 
411 Blockley Hall      |                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
418 Service Drive      | yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
Philadelphia, PA 19104 | cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
(215) 662-6780         |
From: davidw@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Dave Wellwood)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: International Photographer
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:16:18 GMT

I recently recieved a complimentary issue of "International Photographer."
It offers membership in International Freelance Photographers Organization  
(IFPO). Does anyone have any experience and information with this organization  
and magazine? Is it worth joining?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:16:27 -0400 
From: "Kenneth E. Mohnkern" <km2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Brownies


I recently came into possession of two Kodak Brownies. I'd like to find
some more info on them, like what's the difference between the two I
have, how old are they really, what are they worth, etc.

If you have any info to share, or pointers to good books, please email me.

Thanks,
    ken


#ken mohnkern # the graphics deli # the robotics institute #
              # carnegie mellon university # pittsburgh pa #
#   "It's not the thing you fling, but the fling itself."  #
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: peter629@Armstrong.EDU (James Peterson)
Subject: Nikon 70-210 f4 vs. Sigma APO 70-210 f3.5 ????
Summary: which is the better lens?
Organization: Armstrong State College, Savannah, GA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:58:42 GMT


So which is the better lens? I'm using a FE-2 if it helps. (can't afford the
Nikon 80-200 :( ) 

Thanks for any help

James Peterson
peter629@Armstrong.EDU
From: daf00@da.amdahl.com (Dana A Freiburger)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Any Nikon 8008 regrets (get the F4?)
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:44:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: JUTS.b9p802=i1bCz01
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


My girlfriend is about to buy a new Nikon camera
body, most likely the 8008.  This unit will meet
all of her needs (upgrading from a FE2), yet she
has some concerns that she should consider a F4.
This is a big price jump, and she wanted me to
post a note asking for feedback on the question:

Do you regret not getting an F4 instead of the 8008? Why?

Any email'ed comments would be appreciated.  Thanks...

--
Dana A. Freiburger, Bringup Engineer   |    daf00@cd.amdahl.com     |
Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA      |      (408) 746-3414        |
[     The opinions expressed above are mine, solely, and do not     ]
[    necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of Amdahl Corp    ]
From: monson@sardine.ECE.ORST.EDU (Tyrus Monson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: a question about Velvia
Date: 30 Jul 92 04:27:08 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis

In article <1992Jul29.064134.28454@sys.sweden.dg.com> robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.122147.19913@fy.chalmers.se>, f88mattb@fy.chalmers.se (Mattias Bryntesson) writes:
>
>> I've never had any problem with bad colors with Kodachrome, so this
>> is a new issue!
>
>I have. Every time I've tried Kodachrome. The real answer to this is
>of course that "good colors" is a very subjective thing. I think my
>Kodachrome has been properly processed each time as the rolls more or
>less looks the same. In spite of that, I've never liked the results.
>The contrast is much too high. The colors are muted and wrong and at the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Contrast high/colors muted? Sounds like a contradiction. But I'm
   sure the problem is that I'm not interpreting your words the way
   you intended. What's happening with your pictures?

>same time too bright in some sense. Especially skin colors and foliage
>looks wrong on Kodachrome. It is as if there was a layer of something
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 I don't understand your problem with the skin colors - most people seem to
 find Kodachrome's rendering of flesh tones pleasing.
 Are you having the same problem under all lighting conditions?

 Your criticism of foliage is perfectly legitimate, in my opinion. 
  I find that the best greens are produced with E6 films.

>(silver?) over the image. I liked the results of Kodachrome 25 much
>better than those of Kodachrome 64, but they still weren't good enough.
  (stuff about E6 films deleted)
    

    At times I have problems with my slides, too. On occasion, I
    write a nice letter to the processing lab explaining my reason for 
    being displeased with an image, and I send a sample slide along
    with the letter. On one occasion, the (then Kodak) lab sent back
    a very helpful response. On another occasion, they admitted a goof
    and sent me a free roll of film. (that wasn't bad- they only screwed up
    on the one slide.) On another occasion, with another lab, I got
    a thoroughly incompetent response.(That was the Palo Alto facility-
    what a turkey farm! But I digress.)
    Anyway, my point is that if you are unhappy with the way your slides
    turned out, try writing to the lab that processed the film. It
    won't cost you much, you might get some useful information -
    or you might get some free film!  :-)
From: collier@lacerta.unm.edu (Michael Collier)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Sinar questions
Date: 31 Jul 92 04:59:27 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


after perusing the sinar bron catalog that arrived recently,
i find i have some questions (with en eye towards an f1):

1) sinar makes only a fancy sheet film holder, $400+? does anyone
	else's work particularly well/poorly with sinar?

2) any alternatives for rollfilm backs? $1000+ seems a little steep :-).

3) i don't see a polaroid back listed. any alternatives?

4) what are the advantages of a recessed lensboard for very wide
	lenses (47mm, 65mm)? assuming these are particularly helpful,
	what would be appropriate for the new schneider 58mm?

5) what is "DB conversion"? looks expensive :-).

6) anything else to want/avoid with respect to the f series?

thanks in advance.
-- 
Michael H. Collier        INET: collier@ariel.unm.edu   BITNET: COLLIER@UNMB
1160 Don Pasqual NW; Los Lunas, NM 87031; (505) 865 8770 / (505) 764 5320
"She was a blonde. The kind of blonde that would make a bishop kick in
	a stained glass window". - Raymond Chandler
From: ria@dash.udev.cdc.com (Richard Askew)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Long lenses
Date: 28 Jul 92 08:47:09 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

mingos@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
: In article <45681@shamash.cdc.com>, ria@dash.udev.cdc.com (Richard Askew) writes:
: > zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
: > : In article <1992Jul25.154705.15326@PacBell.COM>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
: 
:    As someone once pointed out to me, if you release the shutter as you
: slowly and steadily breath out, it gives a bit more stability, as you're not
: actually tensing your muscles.  I find it works for me, better than holding my
: breath.  It may not be better in everyone's case, but it's worth a try...
: 
- Perhaps this is equally applicable to many other techniques in life...!

: > : It is rare that there isn't SOMETHING you can brace against though...
: > 
: > - I've known people to mount a camera on an old rifle stock 
: > - but its probably worth adding a large label "THIS IS ONLY CAMERA" !
: 
:    - I think that might make some people even MORE nervous ! :-)

Hmmmm! - Yes, I see what you mean !

--
Richard Askew
Information Management Centre
Control Data Systems Inc
London (UK)
Internet: ria@cdl.cdc.com
FAX (+44) 81 848 3134
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: val@mitre.org (Colin Valentine)
Subject: Re: ENLARGING 35mm/Med.format/other
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:49:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.222507.303@walter.bellcore.com>, hsong@ardour.bellcore.com writes:
> 
> Reconsider 6x9cm.  Usual professional labs do not carry 6x9 negative
> carriers, or their automated printing setups are for 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7
> only.  If you can find a lab with a 6x9 neg carrier, they will charge
> you more since they consider its printing is a custom job.  It may be OK
> for enlargement jobs, since enlargement is already a custom job.

Use contact proofs, NOT machine prints for 6x9.  8 negatives fit on one 8x10
sheet, and its normally cheaper than GOOD machine proofs.  And you are right,
no problems for custom print jobs (they can always use glass 4x5 carrier).

Oh, and BTW, I use a Fuji GW690II.  Love it.  6x9 Velvia looks GREAT! 
The 90mm lens is a slight wide angle, just about equivalent to a 38mm lens on
a 35mm.  Now, my problem is do I get the GSW690 III to go with it?

Colin
val@mitre.org
From: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Any Nikon 8008 regrets (get the F4?)
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:39:57 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems



The F4 has mirror lock-up, 8008 does not.

	Dave
From: jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: How can I detect that my fixer is running out?
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:47:22 GMT

I've just started playing away in a darkroom, but there's something
that still bothers me: how do I notice that the fixer for my paper
should be replaced?

With film it's easy: if the film doesn't look clear you just put it
back and wait longer and replace it as soon as the time becomes too
long. With paper, however, nothing much seems to happen to the photo
while it is lying in the fixer. There must be some neat tricks for
this, or is everyone keeping count of the amount of paper fixed?

-- 
--
Jack Jansen        | If I can't dance I don't want to be part of
Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl | your revolution             -- Emma Goldman
uunet!cwi.nl!jack    G=Jack;S=Jansen;O=cwi;PRMD=surf;ADMD=400net;C=nl
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 8008S and SB24: TTL Matrix-computed Flash photography..
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:42:24 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <BEN_WEN.92Jul23001414@e40-008-13.mit.edu> ben_wen@athena.mit.edu (Benson Wen) writes:
>
>Nope, no distance information is shared by the camera.  I doubt if the
>camera itself even knows where it has focused.  

Are you generalizing and saying this about all autofocus cameras, or just
Nikons, because this is not true of the 7xi. It knows subject distance, and
subject speed (in 3 dimentions), based on what its autofocus system is doing.

Gary
-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: faust@bagels.enet.dec.com (Stephen R Faust)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Wanted: A light table or slide sorting recommendations
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:40:59 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Jul21.210941.19349@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes...
>Assuming that a light table is the most practical way to go about this, I'm  
>wondering if anyone has a light table they are willing to sell or can
>recommend one.

There are many on the market, but I have found the Logan light boxes work
real well, are  color  and intensity corrected, and inexpensive.  I would
also get one or  two  of  the  cheap  ($12  or so) sorters.  They are not
corrected, use standard  house  bulbs, and will hold about 40 to 80 or so
slides (depending on the model). 

Sorting 2500 slides will  be  real tough on a small box.  Get the largest
size you can afford, and  a  few  of  the  sorters.  Use the light box to
check exposure and color balance, and  the  sorters to arrange the slides
in groups/subjectstypes/etc..

Too bad you're so far away.  I just picked up  the  ultimate  light box I
would  let  you  use  (got  it  for  free!).  Its a Hamilton  VR20  light
box/drafting  table.  About 3.5'x6',  color  corrected,  intensity  dial,
motorized height adjustment, horizontial table tilt, etc..  It took me an
hour or so to clean it, but it now looks new.

I use that to do my sorting and checking  (I can spread out about 12 full
slide  pages at a time.  About 240 slides!), and  have  3  of  the  slide
sorters that sit at the back of the table (another 160  slides).  Sorting
is now a breeze.  I used to use the sorters with a small Logan light box,
and it was a pain to try to group a large number of slides at a time (ie,
more than 4 rolls or so).

>Oh!  Do I need a loupe?  If so, can you recommend power and make?

Yes.  The best I have found (and I've bought many), is the Peak  8x.   It
lets  you  see the entire frame at a time, optically is very good, and is
less expensive than other  'good' loupes.  I use that in conjunction with
a Peak 22x for checking grain/sharpness/etc.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen R Faust                                         faust@bagels.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.                            faust@bagels.enet.dec.com
Networks and Communications                                   (508) 486-7433
Littleton, MA
============================================================================
From: nelson@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Matt Nelson)
Subject: Re: Loupes, experiences with high quality types?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Keywords: Loupe, transparencies.
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:03:00 GMT

phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Gleichauf) writes:

>	About a year ago I was purusing a copy of Shutterbug and noticed
>a short column praising the virtues of a loupe that was being sold
>by a small optical design company in Decauter, Georigia.  I have since lost
>the address. 
>	Does anyone out there know the address of the company?  Even better
>do you have experience with this companiy's products?  I recall that it was
>about $175.

sorry, no info on that...

>	Further comments comparing Schneider, Peek (which some here seem 
>to favor), Hoya and others will be appreciated.  My interest is for 35 and
>6x6 light table use on transparencies.

>							Paul

  I recently went out looking for a good loupe.  I settled on a Peak
Anastigmatic 4X loupe (sorry, I dont have the model number handy...
maybe a 1990?  if you want it, I can dig it up for you.).
I got it at a local shop for about $110.  It is fairly large (maybe 3"
in diameter), and has a big enough field to see an entire 35mm slide and
most of the mount.  It has an interesting feature in that there is a large
lens element near the base of the loupe barrel, almost in contact with
the subject.  While shopping, I compared this one to the 'new'
Hoya 4X aspherical, and I believe a Rodenstock and Schneider.  The Hoya
was a little cheaper, and the other two were a fair bit more expensive (like
maybe $180-ish).  My biggest concern was that there be as little color 
fringing of the image as possible.  I was very disappointed in all of the 
loupes I tried *except*  the Peak.  Even the more expensive loupes had 
significant color on the edges of the field.  The Peak is very sharp accross 
the entire field of view, with only a slight bit of color way out on 
the edge of the slide mount.

  All in all, I am very happy with it (except the large size and lack of a
carrying case).

Matt Nelson (nelson@master.ps.uci.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.photo