HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: lens protection
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:08:24 GMT
Organization: I is a writur

weiss@epx.cis.umn.edu writes:

>A professional photographer has suggested that I NOT place a skylight filter
>onto my new APO 100-300mm f4 zoom.
>He contends that doing so will degrade the lens performance and that the
>coating already on the lens should be sufficiently resistant to damage.

This is what's known in the biz as a "religious issue" -- read the magazines
and books and you'll hear both sides. 

I have yet to meet anyone, or read about anyone who's been able to sit down
with a stack of photo enlargments or slides, a loupe and an evening's
snooping and been able to put the pictures taken with a UV filter in one
pile and the ones without in another.

In other words, everyone has an opinion, but they've never backed it up with
facts. In theory, adding any filter degrades performance of the lens. I've
yet to see anyone show that the degradation is visible, even under
magnification, when using good quality lenses. (one exception: filters tend
to increase the tendency towards flare. Whether this is a problem for you is
up to you). 

I use them on some lenses. I don't on others. I can't tell the difference.
If you want to figure out whether it's a problem, take the lens, shoot a
roll with the filter, another roll without, and snuggle up to a good loupe.
If you can't tell the difference, there's no reason to not use one.

The one thing I specifically argue with above is that the coating on the
lens will NTO be as resistance to damage. The whole purpose of the skylight
in the first place is to essentially protect the lens from damage (the real
question is whether the protection is worth the picture degredation). It's a
lot cheaper to replace a scratched filter than fix a scratched lens. The
filter helps keep the lens cleaner, requiring fewer cleanings (and the
multicoatings aren't that tolerate of lots of cleaning) and also protects
against bumps, scrapes, thrown bricks and damaged filter threads. 

My personal feeling: IF you use hard lens hoods (like on my Minolta lenses;
not rubber ones) and IF you're careful about lens caps and keeping lenses in
bags and otherwise generally paranoid about keeping them out of harms way;
and IF you're really paranoid about picture quality, then don't use skylight
filters. Otherwise, put them on, just in case. (which reminds me. I need to
get them for one of my lenses).

That's my feeling in the religious war. I doubt 1 in a hundred photographers
would ever notice a difference in picture quality, so why not? The lens you
save may be your own.

-- 
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= Member, SFWA
  chuq@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ =+= Editor, OtherRealms
	A real SF writur with stories in ALTERNATE KENNEDYS and THE 
	  FURTHER ADVENTURES OF BATMAN, in better bookstores now!

          Painted emblems of a race, all accurst in days of yore,
       Each from his accustomed place steps into the world once more.
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Dedicated Flash for EOS?
Date: 20 Jul 92 11:49:27 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Jul13.181456.4288@clark.edu>, gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:

> >Canon 430EZ GN 125 (not sure), internal zoom head 28-80, flash comp. +/- ??,
> >            A-TTL preflash, bounce/swivel, $230 NY mail order
> >
> 
> I believe the GN for the 430EZ is at least 150-160 (my manual is at home),
> and yes it does have FLash Comp. but I can't remember the +/- amount
> either.

+/- 3 stops in 1/3 steps. The guide number given above is in feet. The
guide number in meters is up to 43 (that's where the model number comes
from) at the 80mm setting.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Long lenses
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 08:40:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.154705.15326@PacBell.COM>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
...
>                                   Some people are just able to
> shoot at slower speeds, you just have to know your limitations
> (no flame intended here).  SIDE NOTE:  I am very aware of my
> breathing and heart rate and I mentally try to moderate my
> breathing and attempt to relax to slow my heart rate and as
> I am about to shoot at 1/15 (hand held), I relax, take a slow 
> deep breath, hold it and I slowly press the shutter release. I
> often use the self-timer to release the shutter.
> 
> The point being made is not everyone can shoot at slow
> speeds and there are people who can shoot at slow speeds.

Second the above. I did rifle shooting and trap shooting years ago, and could
pull hand-helds way oer what 'the book' said was possible. Oer the last year or
so though, I can't hold steady worth 2 cents... Called age or something.

It is rare that there isn't SOMETHING you can brace against though...
~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: weiss@epx.cis.umn.edu ()
Subject: lens protection
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:53:28 GMT

A professional photographer has suggested that I NOT place a skylight filter
onto my new APO 100-300mm f4 zoom.
He contends that doing so will degrade the lens performance and that the
coating already on the lens should be sufficiently resistant to damage.
Anyone have experience with this issue?
Thanks!
From: savoia@sw.stratus.com (Rick Savoia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: PZ-1 over the EOS 10s, N8008s
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:31:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.071517.2132@sactoh0.sac.ca.us>, mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John) writes:
> Subject: Re: advice wanted on the Pentax PZ1 vs the Canon EOS 10s
> Keywords: Get the PZ-1
> References: <1992Jul21.073517@wrl.dec.com>
> 
> The PZ-1 has a programmable image tracking and "zoom clip", you can
> preset two focal lengths that the lens will go to when you press
> the button on the lens. That is if you are at 28mm for a tennis
> match, and all of a sudden you see a good shot, press the button
> and presto, 105mm without thinking! (with 105mm preset).


No offense intended but is that much better than turning the 
zoom ring?   I like to have control over my focal length.  What
I want might not be at 105mm, but rather at 90 or 150.  Personally,
I can't see much use for 'power zoom'.  Kind of ranks right up there
with bar code readers in my book.


Rick
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dionj@netcom.com (Dion Johnson)
Subject: Re: Olympus XA ( was Re: Contax T2 )
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 07:06:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <1992Jul23.173417.8776@PA.dec.com>, by klee@wsl.dec.com (Ken Lee):
> [ comments about XA's.. ] 
> The only model worth considering is the original Olympus XA, with its true
> rangefinder focusing.  The others (XA1, XA2, etc.) have much simpler and less
> accurate focusing systems.
> -- 
> Ken Lee

The XA-4 "macro" is interesting in that it has a shorter focal length
lens and scale focusing down to 1.7 ft.  No rangefinder, but with
a  28mm lens, it's not as critical. -Dion
-- 
Dion L. Johnson  --  dionj@netcom.com
The material above is my personal opinion, and has no official sanction
from The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. 

From: leonglaw@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Lawrence Leong)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:28:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Photo batteries vs. Watch Batteries
Organization: HP Singapore
Newsgroups: rec.photo

In rec.photo, phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:

    I believe the cheaper of those batteries is alkaline and the more
    expensive one is silver oxide.  The silver oxide one should last
    a little longer.  I have been using the Duracell 1/3N lithiums
    in my Nikon FM and FG20 bodies with no trouble.

LR44=alkaline
SR44=silver oxide

lawrence
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: a question about Velvia
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:21:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.160514.14150@javelin.sim.es.com> rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs) writes:
>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.
>
My local photo store sells Velvia by the brick.  Velvia ships
them 10 to a brick @8.51 per roll.
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: New Nikon Equipments.  Nikinos RS & SB-104
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 15:38:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <13210@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>, by dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard):
>>
>>How much did F2 cost?  I remember when F3 just came out, I could get it
>>for US$600.  Now we have paid somewhere between $1,500 and $2,000  for
>>the F4s, I thought that will be the highest it will go (let's keep Leica
>>out for the time being).
>>
> 
> 	In 1977, I paid, discounted from New York, for a new
> 	F2 Photomic (DP2), $335 chrome, $350 black.
> 
> 	You can still by an F3 HP new for around $799 (remember,
> 	the HP finder cost about $100 more than the regular
> 	prism finder, and now you can't buy the regular prism
> 	finder, but still pay the premium in exchange for a
> 	smaller image magnification in the finder- a net loss
> 	as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not an eyeglass wearer).
> 
> 	The story is that Nikon was shocked when as many people
> 	bought the F4 as have done so, since the F4 was deliberately
> 	priced at a premium level.

Do you get a feeling that we are in for a ride.  I bet many of us mortgaged
a big chunk of our credit card because we thought this was going to be
THE ULTIMATE camera for the 90's!  If Nikon is going to take the large
sales of F4s' as a norm and take us for granted, then we might soon have to
pay $10,000 just for a "somewhat super-motorized" 300/2.8 ED AF. 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: What's the most flexible FLASH unit for the ELAN?
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:05:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul23.200547.8289
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Jul23.143925.5857@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> chucksi@stc.comm.mot.com (Chuckorama) writes:
>Subject line says it all...I need suggestions for a very flexible flash unit 
>for the EOS ELAN...I do a lot of stuff requiring fill flash...and other uses
>of artificial light, but I'm too new to the camera to make a valid quality
>judgement on external flash units. Any suggestions?

Simply the best for your Cannon.....the 430EZ....I have one, and I love it.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: New Nikon Equipments
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:12:58 GMT
Organization: A/UX Engineering, Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.150319.23251@cs.cmu.edu> phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Gleichauf) writes:
>	There has been along standing rumor about an F5 for more than a year
>without substantiation.  The only scheduled Nikon 35 mm camera for release
>that has been announced is the Nikonos RS underwater camera line.
>...

I would expect a new Nikon 'F' model in 1995.  I we look at the past track
record, it seems like the time between each model gets smaller:

  Model  Introduced  Discontinued  Num of years since last model
  -----  ----------  ------------  -----------------------------
    F       1959         1974                    -
    F2      1971         1980                   12
    F3      1980         1988(?)                 9
    F4      1988         -                       8
    F5      1995(guess)  -                       7(guess)
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: a question about Velvia
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:27:53 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Jul23.095747.16915@fy.chalmers.se>, f88mattb@fy.chalmers.se (Mattias Bryntesson) writes:
> In article <3097@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:
> 
> >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.
> 
> I got some Kodachrome slides back yesterday and they had very rich,
> saturated colors. Do you expose correctly? I think stopping down 2/3
> or so would make your colors come. Kodachrome requires much more
> careful exposure than the E6 alternatives, but when treated right
> it gives you wonderful pictures (it has also excellent achival properties).
> I like Velvia too, and sure hopes it comes in bulk.

Underexposing Kodachrome certainly increases the color saturation *somewhat*,
but at the same time, the slide becomes muddier and lots of details are
lost in shadows. Ever tried photographing green foliage with a mix of sunlit
and shadowed areas on underexposed Kodachrome (EI 80 or EI 100 for K64)?
The shadows are black or nearly so and the highlights looks dead.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Seen at the launch...
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 08:46:06 GMT

In article <PHR.92Jul24092307@soda.berkeley.edu>, phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
...
> Oh yes, we were the only college age people in the press area.
> Everyone else was grizzled veteran reporters and photogs who were
> blase about the launch, but we were real space buffs and started
> jumping up and down and cheering when the shuttle finally went
> up---then suddenly noticed that dozens of photogs were taking pictures
> of *us*!  Some kind of human interest angle I guess.  I don't know if
> any of those shots ever got published.

If you where wearing tan/brown gear, and one had a red jumper or something, YES.
No, don't ask me to remember where... it could even have been the TV coverage
~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dan@netcom.com (Dan Liddell)
Subject: Re: Spot meters
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:53:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul24.142349.23160@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow) writes:
>Regarding the size of the Pentax *Digital* spotmeter...

From the manual for the pentax digital spotmeter:

45.5mm (W) x 144mm (H) x 83mm (D), 250g (without batteries)

battery is another 20+ grams.
-- 
Dan Liddell   dan@netcom.com
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Contaminated fixer
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:35:40 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Chuck Liang writes:

>   Last time I was developing film I accidentally used Hypo-clearing
> agent as fixer.  I poured it out when I realized my mistake and put in
> the fixer and went on as usual.  The results are acceptable.  The
> fixer (kodak) has thus been contaminated by traces of hypo-clear.  Should I 
> use it again?  On film?  On paper?

Now take what I say with a grain of understanding that I'm chemistry-
impaired.  And perhaps someone who understands the actual chemical
reactions will have a more informed response.  However, my understanding
from reading is that hypo-clearing solutions combine with the by-products
of fixing, not with the fixer itself.  The last I read, it's these
by-products which cause deterioration of images over time more than fixer
itself.  In fact, I've read some speculation that a very small amount of
*UNEXHAUSTED* fixer may actually prolong print life.  Anyway, the action of
the hypo-clearing agent is to remove fixing by-products, not fixer itself.

One author even said that one could safely use hypo-clearing agent for mixing
one's fixer and combine the two steps.  'Course he didn't mention why 
no-one actually seems to do so ... 

But it sounds to me as if, 1)  The hypo should be just fine and 2) As
another poster commented, hypo costs little enough that it also wouldn't
hurt too much to just chuck it.

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: rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs)
Subject: Re: a question about Velvia
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:25:01 GMT

In article <58@gobi.UUCP> stevek@gobi.UUCP (Stephen Kogge) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.160514.14150@javelin.sim.es.com> rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs) writes:
>>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 I would check with Fuji about that film. I decided to buy a
>100 foot roll so I called the local (Wash DC, Md, and Va) stores and got the
>answer that they did not stock 100 ft spools. I called Fuji Tech support
>and at first they said OH yes! Here are 5 distributors in your area. Calls to
>all of them resulted in a call back to Fuji. A few hours of telephone tag
>and the final decision/answer from Fuji was that 100ft spools were not
>part of Fuji's import program. At first they were willing to sell it me
>directly if I could not find a distributor. But since they could not
>get it I was out of luck. Maybe I could find a gray market spool but
>all bets were off as to the quality of this spool.
>	I did not get a reason why 100 ft spool of Velvia were not part
>of Fuji's import program, just that they had no plans to import it.
>	I ended up buying a block from Vienna Photo.
>	Not importing 100ft spools of Velvia has to be one of few
>stupid moves Fuji has ever made.
>	Somebody else want to try Tech support to see if they get a different
>answer about bulk Velvia?
>
I'm not sure where B&H got the 100ft Velvia rolls, but it had the official
Fuji label, but it was in a larger metal can than the other Fujichrome I
have gotten.  Perhaps B&H imports it directly from Japan; I have no way
of knowing.  I have spilt the 100ft roll with three friends, and have shot
one roll myself.  It looked OK.  Two of those friends do their own E-6 and
I do it for the other.  There should be a fair amount of shooting as summer
progresses, and if I see or hear anything amiss about the film, I'll post
on the net.

You are certainly right about Fuji's stupid move not to import Velvia in
bulk.  This was the case with Fujichrome 100 (RDP) until about 1985.  Being
so far removed makes the customer response loop quite uncertain.

Ron Speirs, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Extra finder  (Was Re: Panning...)
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:21:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul21.001257.805@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rao@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Govindaraju Rao) writes:
>
>   Ram writes:
>   I have an EOS Rebel in which the mirror lifts up during
>   exposure. So I guess panning is out of the question.
>   Has anyone tried it with a similar camera ?
>  
>Assuming that by 'similar' you mean a camera in which the 
>mirror flips up during exposure, yes, I have tried it with
>reasonable success. I am not clear as to why it should be
>'out of the question'. The trick is not so much in tripping
>the shutter at the (proverbial) "right instant" , but in the


  Panning is one thing rangefinder cameras have over SLR's.  However,
I wonder if it has occured to anybody to use an old clip-on finder on
their SLR to achieve the best of both worlds?  I just got a 35mm-135mm
clip-on finder for my old leica screwmount camera, and it just occured
to me that I can also attach it to my SLR and use it when I don't want
to look through the SLR's finder, which is often dark, and blacks out
during exposure (the finder goes in the flash shoe).  It would be
helpful in panning as well as when you use a slow shutter speed
without a tripod.  I find it much easier to hand-hold a range-finder
camera while using a slow speed because you can tell if you moved or not
during the exposure.  This could also be useful with SLR's having a
mirror lock-up feature.  You would of course, have to deal with some
paralax as in most non-SLR cameras.

Just a thought...
From: jstewart@Software.Mitel.COM (John Stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Registering equipment with US Customs
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:51:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Jul29.195001.12602@philabs.philips.com> hyw@philabs.philips.com (Huay-Yong Wang) writes:
>My wife and I are planning to go for a month long vacation
>overseas. As usual, we are hauling lots of camera equipment
>(Mamiya 645 Super and Canon EOS systems) along with us and
>we wonder what are the steps needed to take so that we don't
>get hassled by the US customs on our way back into USofA.
>Is there a procedure for one to register camera equipment with
>the US customs? Comments and advise will be greatly appreciated.

I know that the CANADIAN Customs people will fill out a wallet sized
card that contains a description and a serial number of the items.
They sign the card and stamp it. All that they need to see is the
equipment with the serial numbers on it.

I can not talk about the US Customs service, but I would assume that
they would have some way of registering equipment as well.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wish to god these calculations had | John Stewart - Mitel Corp, Kanata Can.
been executed by steam" - C Babbage.  | jstewart@software.mitel.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------