HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elau@berlioz.nsc.com (Eugene Lau)
Subject: Re: EF 14mm L Not As Good As Sigma 14 mm
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation, Santa Clara
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:03:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.022438.486@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen) writes:
>That is what Pop. Photography says in the latest report. 
>Contrary to popular belief, money does not talk. The $1800 Canon 14/f2.8 L
>lens is a worse performer than the $430 Sigma 14/f3.5 lens. Canon should
>take this black sheep away to maintain the prestige of the "L" family.
>
>Jason Chen

this is the conclusion from pop. photo.  canon's tests may show otherwise.
take my 28-80mmUSM (non L) for example.  pop. photo said light falloff at 
the corners of the frame is gone by f5.6 at all focal lengths.  my lens did
not perform this well, so I sent it to canon in LA for service.  canon ran
some tests and reported to me that at f5.6 the falloff begins to fade away
but is not gone until f8 or f11.  my own test results are consistent with
canon's.

pop. photo was a bit generous to the 28-80, I hope they don't do this often.

eugene

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Quick contact sheet proofer
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:22:50

    Related topic.  has anyone found any sheet type neg sleves that hold the
    negs in the proper orientation for direct proofing.  I'm using the Savage
    type that is suppose to be good for proofing and it doesn't fit nicely on
    an 8x10.

I use Vue-all sleeves.  They work just fine, except you get 7x5 = 35 frames
on an 8x10 sheet instead of getting all 36.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shun@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (shun.cheung)
Subject: Advices on Long Nikkor Lenses Needed
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:08:00 GMT

I use Nikon cameras and am into bird/wildlife photography. I am
considering getting a 500mm or 600mm lens. Anybody has any experience
with those lenses? I have a 500mm/f8 mirror and it is just too slow
for me.

Thanks in advance.

-- 
-- Shun Cheung,    electronic: shun.cheung@att.com    voice: (908) 615-5135
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: twtan@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu (Tack Wee Tan)
Subject: Re: Lithiums vs. alkalines (was Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:05:06 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen) writes:

>|> 
>|> The second thing I know is that rec.photo readers say that lithiums
>|> last for anywhere from 5-25 rolls of film. That probably depends
>|> alot on flash use, and possibly on brand of battery. Let's say the
>|> average is 20 rolls, even though this sounds very generous from
>|> what people have reported. At $12 per battery, that's $0.60 per
>|> roll of film--TEN TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE.

>You jumpped the gun too quickly.

>Previous discussions on 5-25 rolls/battery referred to specific cameras
>(EOS Elan and 10s). Although there is no definite, pin-pointing explanation
>to the low numbers, the built-in flash has been established as the
>source of power drain.  Therefore, the low yield of Elan and 10s has little
>to do with the battery. Your comparison of batteries based on those data
>has foundamental flaws.

>A more creditable test for battery comparison is to examine the yields of
>630 and 8008, although it is still comparing apples with oranges.

>My 630 is still on its first battery, so I can not tell the yeild of 
>the battery at present time. What I can say is there have been
>900 frames recorded on the data back, and the battery has no sign of stress
>yet.

>I would be happy to provide the number when the battery finally dies, but
>you have to be patient. :-)

>Jason Chen

I've had the 6006 before and I don't use the built-in flash at all because
I have a SB-24 dedicated flash. But believe me, it still comes to 5-20
rolls per battery. I bought an 8008s about a year ago, and believe me,
you still save a LOT from AA batteries. I too shoot roughly 50 rolls per
year and AAs come in extremely handy. Over a long run, buying rechargable
AAs instead of alkaline would make it even more cost effective.

Colin Tan 

Organization: Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentatn, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 10:44:58 -0500 
From: "Frank A. Reynolds" <fr0c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Saunders 4x5 enlargers

Has anyone used a Saunders/LPL 4500 4x5 enlarger?  I first saw them in a
Salthill catalogue which in part says that the Saunders "it is
essentially the first truly modern enlarger to appear in the marketplace
in many years."  PR or not what is of interest to me is that rather than
having different heads the Saunders has one head with interchangeable
filter modules, one each for color, variable contrast papers and
straight B&W.  I got a quote of, $1595.00 for the enlarger with the
color (dichroic) filter module and $350.00 for the variable contrast
filter module, $1945.00 total.  Some color heads (and VC heads) cost
that much.



Frank Reynolds



Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: brtph650 (s aubuchon)
Subject: Re: Dye Transfers
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Northern Telecom
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:44:30 GMT

In article <1gaqonINNc4i@sixgun.East.Sun.COM>, marc@milan.East.Sun.COM
(Marc Thompson-Sun-Vienna VA-Systems Engineer) wrote:
> 
> I have heard seveal people talk dye transfers. Could someone elaborate on
> this subject?  Also, is there a  good book that discusses this subject?
> 
> Is it the same or different than color seperations in magazines?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Marc &&

Camera and Darkroom covered the subject of Polaroid dye transfers in a
technical article this summer (check June or July). The process is
simple:

1- Project an image, or slide onto Polaroid 660 sheet film.
2- Stop the development 10-15 secs short of normal.
3- Seperate the negative from the positive and discard the latter.
4- Carefully apply the negative to wet squeegied watercolor paper.
   (Soak the paper in warm distilled water for at least 30 secs).
5- Using a rubber roller, press the negative firmly onto the paper.
   This will force the dyes onto the paper.
6- Carefully remove the negative.
7- Let the paper dry flat.

Variables in this process:

Exposure.
Development time.
Watercolor paper water saturation.
Water/paper temperature.
Paper texture (I find hot press works better).

Polaroid has a customer service technical support line (800)
that can provide assistance, material and film specs AND the
book/documentation your looking for, free for the asking. If
you or anybody else cant come up with the number, I'll repost
later this week.

=======================================
i rave therefore i trance.

                           SteveA
                           NTI RTP N.C.
                           These opinions are my own...you know the rest.
From: malu@imhps.im.se (Mats Luthman SYSTECON)
Subject: Re: TMAX vs. AGFA
Organization: Industri-Matematik Data AB, Sweden
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:38:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.121312.23344@sys.sweden.dg.com> robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:
   In article <7054@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu>, 6500gw@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Gary Wang) writes:

   > Has anyone compare these two films ? I havn't printed
   > anything from those neg yet. AGFA 25 supposely to have
   > finer grain than TMAX. 

   It has. T-Max 100 can also be improved by developing it in Rodinal
   rather than in T-Max developer or in D-76. I would also suggest
   you to use Rodinal diluted 1+50 rather than 1+25.

Improved in what way? Smaller grain, different contrast or what?

   Agfa has the  development times for both dilutions.

Are they in the box or do you have to ask them? Has anybody tried it
and could tell us what they think?


--
Mats Luthman
Systecon AB (A subsidiary of Industri-Matematik AB)
Stockholm, Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rayw@ee.ubc.ca (raymond w m woo)
Subject: Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:29:21 GMT

In article <Bz27q5.Lsz@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>
>I would do without a lot of the gadgetry, but I
>would *never* have a camera without a spot meter.
>

   Based on the info I read in this group, the Nikon 8008s' spot meter covers
   5% of the screen and the EOS Elan's partial meter covers 6%.  My question is:
   would this 1% difference be very critical in actual usage? 

>-- 
>Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
>Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
>New York, New York  10043
>The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.


-- 
::::::: Raymond WM Woo  <rayw@ee.ubc.ca> ::::::: Elec. Eng. UBC, Canada :::::::
From: glennc@remote_fe.Aus.Sun.COM (Glenn Connelly)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Kodachrome 64
Date: 14 Dec 1992 06:32:06 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: glennc@remote_fe.Aus.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: remote_fe.aus.sun.com

Very high contrast , over  vivid colours , and cost have dampened my enthusiasm for Velvia.

I have tried a few  non-professional slide films but essentially Velvia is a hard act to follow.  Continually I hear photographers extol the virtues of Kodachrome 64. The three or four times I have tried it have been dissapointing in result. My main critisism is the poor handling of detail in shaddow; there seems to be a cut-off point where darker shades all become the same colour ...... brown/black! The fine grain and cost however suit my needs.

I use both the 801 and the 801S so the metering systems should deliver.

I have heard talk of exposing 64 at a different setting, what of this?

Are there situations especially unsuited for 64?

Are there situations especially ideal for 64?

CONVINCE ME PLEASE!

Rgds,

Glenn..........
From: lmh@iago.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Kodak mailer value
Date: 19 Dec 1992 18:09 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: iago.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

 I have a few old Kodak mailers good for film processing. Does 
anyone still honor these?
thanks,
larry henling   lmh@shakes.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ahay@jarthur.claremont.edu (God)
Subject: Should I buy Tamron or Sigma?
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:33:51 GMT

Yes, I did read the FAQ.  I'm afraid I couldn't get as much out of it as I
wanted.


Within the next few weeks I hope to buy a ~80-300 mm lens for my Maxxum 8000i.

At the moment I have a Sigma 35-80, and was planning on getting another Sigma,
but I have been reading bad things about them in this news group recently, :(
so I am wondering if it would be a bad choice.

The lenses I am now considering (including price at CW of Oregon) are:

Sigma 75-300 f4.0 DL                 167.85
Sigma 75-300 f4.5 APO                259.85  (!)
Sigma 75-300 f4.0 APO                214.85
Tamron 90-300 f4.5                   179.00

Can anyone tell me whay the Sigma with the biggest minimum f/ setting is also
the most expensive?  Seems strange to me.  (I don't care too much - I'm going
to get a flash and use a shorter lens if I'm shooting when it's dark.)

Is having an apochromatic (sp?) lens really important?  I don't see any APO
Tamron lenses.  I'm really not planning on selling any of my photos, but I DO
want good looking pictures - otherwise I would have bought a point-and-shoot
camera for a lot less money.

My main subjects for this lens will be skiing pictures and pictures of
children, and may be enlarged as big as 8 X 10, but probably no larger.  I
am looking for a lens that will give me GOOD pictures and last a long time.
(It's a lot cheaper to buy one good lens than two bad ones.)  I'd appreciate
any help anyone can give me in this area.  (i.e. please make my decision for
me - I'll go with whatever the majority of respondants suggests!)

Thanks for your time,

-Alex
ahay@jarthur.claremont.edu
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Hasselblad: VF pic. area? MO pricing?
Date: 19 Dec 92 16:08:59 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Dec17.082452.29391@news.Hawaii.Edu> yee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jonathan Yee) writes:
>
>	I've noticed that Nikon, and perhaps others, specify how much of
>the picture area is covered by the viewfinder.. As I'm considering Hassel-
>blad -- I guess the "Classic" 500 C/M kit -- the question comes up as to
>how much pic. area does its VF covers in terms of percentage (e.g., Nikon
>F4S says its VF covers 100% of the pic. area, Nikon N8008S says (something)
>more than 90% (less than 100%)). This is important esp. if one does copy
>work and needs to know the VF's picture area boundaries.

"The image area seen on the ground glass of the Hasselblad camera, or the
ground-glass back when attached to the rear of the camera, corresponds to
97% of the area convered on the film. This is done purposely as the slide
mount covers up a small area of the image on the film." (Wildi, 
_The_Hasselblad_Manual_, 3rd edition, p.114).

>	MO pricing. Cambridge Camera Exchange seems to have the best price
>for the Classic: $1995 vs. $2295 or higher at all other MO outfits I've
>seen. I suppose this may have to do with them selling a non-USA warranty
>product. Anybody care to speculate or reason why *should* there be a
>difference in price?...

Well, I'd suggest you read the monthly mail order survey to get a clearer
perspective on Cambridge. As others have pointed out, Hassy is offering a
free, spare A-12 magazine (list price $675, I think) with the purchase of
a VHI-imported 500 Classic. 
Suffice it to say that *many* other dealers (Calumet, B&H, Adorama, etc)
have a much better track record in their dealings with folks in this 
newsgroup.

Steve
From: sbertsch@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steve Bertsch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Mirror lock-up, Has anybody really tested?
Keywords: Catch-22
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:33:49 GMT
Organization: University Systems


  Before it's shutter bit the dust, I had a Pentax KX with mirror lockup.
You would think that high magnification macro work would call for mirror
lockup without question, but it ain't so.
  At 10x or so magnification, the mere act of locking up the mirror *will*
knock the whole mess out of focus, and since the mirror is up, you can't
see what's going on.
  I presently use a very stiff, homemade macrophoto stand, focusing rail,
long cable release, and crossed fingers. Luck does help :-)
-- 
bertsch.3@osu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lancelot@spock.uucp (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:37:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.212159.22023@adobe.com> asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders) writes:
>
>Canon cameras have some very attractive features. Me, I chose
>Nikon because it's built to last.
>
>		   -Alan

And me, I chose Olympus, because it's built to last -- and an OM-4T body with
all the goodies weighs _less_ than a good-sized cinderblock...

-- 
*******************************************************************************
*Thor Simon             * Okay, just a little pin-prick...There'll be no more-*
*tls@panix.COM          * Aieeeeaaaugh!-but you may feel a little _sick_.     *
*tls@spock.UUCP         *   ---Pink Floyd                                     *
*******************************************************************************
From: dtalmage@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Query: Books on physics of photography
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:14:03 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

Who can recommend some books on the physics of photography?  They're 
for my wife, a chemist w/strong math background.  She's interested in 
the way lenses work and why exposures work the way they do (e.g. f/8 @ 
1/100 sec == f/16 @ 1/50 sec).

David Talmage
Organization: Doctoral student, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:29:01 -0500 
From: Luis Abdon Cifuentes <lc0v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: CC filtration for var.contrast paper


I am doing b&w enlargements with Agfa variable contrast paper. I have a
color enlarger, so I want to vary the contrast of the paper using the
enalrger filters 

Does anybody knows what filtration shall I use to get different grades
of contrast? The  paper I am using is Agfa Multicontrast MC310, high
speed (boy, is it fast!)

Some time ago some good soul posted the filtration for Kodak
Polycontrast paper: I think it was the following:
 Grade      Filtration
   2            no
   2.5       5Y  40M
   3         5Y  60M
   3.5      15Y 140M

Also, if anybody knows the filtration for any other paper, please send
it to me. I'll post a summary table that can be very useful.

Luis

PS: why do manufactures not include this information in the instructions
sheets? Do they really want us to buy a set of filters for each type of
paper?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Bayonet mount strength of Canon EOS10s and the rest
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:20:43 GMT
Keywords: Nikon

In article <92Dec16.001139.28306@acs.ucalgary.ca>, panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio) writes:
> >irving@Happy-Man.com (Irving_Wolfe) once wrote:
> >>I have two Canon EOS-10s bodies and have been seriously
> >>disappointed in their apparent flimsiness.  The lens mount is a
> >>metal "ring" seated into the plastic body by friction-fit only, it
> >>would appear, and even moderate accidental side-pressure on a long
> >>lens is enough to disturb the fit and cause the lens mount to no
> >>longer be parallel to the film plane.
> 
> As a mechanical engineer AND part-time professional photographer,
> this disturbs me. While I acknowledge that Canon's EOS line has
> some excellent technical advantages in autofocus, I've generally
> been skeptical of the line ever since the original EOS cameras

Has it really been established that the 10s lensmount is a friction fit? 
Looking at it, there are a number of small screws in the mount, which would
seem to indicate it may be attached to the body by means other than friction.
Mr Wolfe's posting is the first time I have ever heard of the lensmount
moving. It certainly would be disturbing to find this happens very often (or
even at all). 

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: umeca80@ps.ic.ac.uk (Bruce Taylor)
Subject: Re: Swelling of wet paper
Organization: Imperial College Computer Centre
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:48:35 GMT

In message <b4u503EKc3Bd00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> (Barry Sherman) notes the
swelling in wet fibre-based papers, eg. size change in 10x8" papers ;
>
>  dry:                              10"      (25.4 cm)
>  after ~3.5 minutes in solutions:  10 1/8"  (25.7 cm)
>  after ~45 minutes in solutions:   10 9/32" (26.1 cm)
>

So, here's the reason:

Paper (i.e. the fibre base) is made from wet fibres of some cellulose material,
normally for photographic uses this is chemically pulped wood pulp. This stuff
is mashed, mixed with water and generally mis-treated before being poured onto
a sieve-like screen to be drained. This leaves a sheet of matted fibres which
are then pressed together to consolidate the fibres. This is then called paper.

When the beaten wood-pulp is poured onto the screen to drain it, the screen is
being shaken to smooth out the mix. The wood fibres line up in the direction
of shaking, this is called 'long grain'. The other direction of grain (at right
angles) is called 'short grain' (suprise suprise). The mix is then passed 
through a set of rollers which rotate at diferent speeds causing the paper to
'skip' through them polishing the surface, this process is usually called
'calendering'. As the paper passes through in the 'long grain' direction this 
tends to further elongate the fibres in this direction.

When the paper is subsequently wetted it swells more in the 'short grain' 
direction, i.e. the fibres increase in circumference but not much in length.
(they should also increase in thickness for the same reason but i'm 
assuming that you didn't get your micrometer out to check this :-)
From this we can deduce (I hope:-) that your papers are cut with the 10" side
along the 'short grain' direction which is why they swell so much along that
edge.

Hope that's not confused you as much as it did me.

BTW about Barry's earlier posting about sharpness:

>A few months ago I posted an observation that my (fiber-based) prints appeared
>less sharp when wet than when dry and speculated that it might be due to
>the paper swelling when wet.

This is caused as much by the gelatin in the emulsion swelling when wet, as the
dimensional stability of the paper base (or lack of it). You can see this as
even RC based papers appear less sharp when wet than dry and these are much
more resistant to swelling than FB papers ('cus the water don't get in).

Here endeth today's trivia lesson :-)

===============================================================================
Bruce Taylor                                    Process Systems Engineering
umeca80@ps.ic.ac.uk                             Imperial College, London
===============================================================================

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Kodachrome 64
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:30:59 GMT

Have you tried the various flavors of Ektachrome 100?  Not HC, but X...

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington     internet mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu :   Verbum caro
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :    factum est
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :  et habitavit
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :   in nobis...
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rodney@cs.UAlberta.CA (Rodney Gitzel)
Subject: Re: I Hate Grainy Pictures
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:29:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.202332.9711@athena.cs.uga.edu>, mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
> 
> WELL SAID.  If all the detail of interest is visible, then there's no real
> reason to want to eliminate grain -- especially if a newspaper's halftone
> screen is going to come along and add much coarser grain!
> 

I disagree.  You need a pretty awful PMT screen to hide grain.
 Likewise, the PMT won't hide much softness, either (sometimes
 rather unfortunately).  It doesn't make much sense to me, either,
 but I keep seeing it again and again.  A sharp photo makes for
 a sharp PMT, and you don't get one any other way. (But, then, it goes to
 the printers and they over-ink it and...bleh.)

Of course, sometimes grain *is* good (concert lighting and TMZ
 go *well* together), but for sports it is *not*.


Rodney Gitzel
Photo Editor
The University of Alberta *Gateway*
Newsgroups: rec.photo