HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Popluar Photography (was does Popular Photography really protect/assist its readers?)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 03:59:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <9aS502P923A401@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman) writes regarding Popular
Photography:

>In fact, I really need to examine what it is about it that so tweaks me.
>I *should* be able to benignly ignore it as irrelevent.  Maybe it's that they
>keep on sending it to me even though I've not paid them a cent in the last
>year and a half and have even returned renewal notices with large notes
>saying "STOP SENDING ME THIS MAGAZINE".

I've been suspicious that there is some consumer spy agency that has
some of us labeled BIG PHOTO SPENDERS.  Barry is a BIG PHOTO SPENDER,
so he keeps getting PopPhoto free.  I am only a MEDIUM PHOTO SPENDER,
so I get renewal notices for $5.95/year, when the Special Introductory
Offer for the general public is something like $15.95/yr.  

Maybe its because I've used my Visa card for purchases at Camera World
of Oregon and Keeble and Shuchat (Palo Alto camera store).  Maybe its
from sending in Nikon and Minolta "Warranty Registration" cards.  

And, Barry, if you really want to make them stop, [[rumor mode on]]
just go to the Post Office and say that this magazine has been sending
you sexually explicit material that you find offensive.  You don't
even have to prove it, just claim it, but you could take along one of
the issues with nudes---I think the last one has a nude painted with
blue paint---and they will give you a form to fill out.  That gets sent
to Pop Photo, and if they don't stop once they've received it then
you go back to the Post Office, and the rumor is that the PO really gets
on their case.

  -- David Jacobson
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: PVC 'leatherette'. Removal and replacing.
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:24:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: cc.1992Oct6.022412.1
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

In article <5160@daily-planet.concordia.ca>, honna@cs.concordia.ca (SEGEL honna) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.143043.187@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky) writes:
>>...
> Yes, you will have to pry up the leatherette.  Assuming you are talking about
> the basic meter-less p-prism, you pretty much have no choice but to take the 
> chance stripping it off entirely and later re-gluing it;loose F p-prisms are
> as rare as all-mechanical manual system 35mm SLRs "for around $100".
> Better to strip the whole piece than just the corners; looks better, anyway.
> I've seen, and used, old-fashioned rubber cement to re-glue the leatherette.
> Don't expect the job you do to be exactly "factory", though you can get 
> pretty close if you cut the glue.
> 

A few tips on this job. Contact 3M and get the data sheets for their contact
adhesives. These will tell you the best ones to use, and how to use 'solvent
activation' to glue the PVC back on.

When you strip it off, go slow, and work parellel to the fold lines as much as
possible. Xylene is a usefull solvent, but beware the fumes... Strip ALL the old
glue off the PVC and the body before treying to glue it back. The PVC always
streches, no matter how carefull you are, in my experience, so a thin sliver
will need to be trimed from the edges anyway.

Also look out for caps or washers over the screw holes. Some units have a thin
flat washer over the screw recess, so as to not have a 'hole' or soft spot
in the cover.

~Paul
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Ektapress 1600
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 1 Oct 92 09:11:42 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <BvEIMB.A6K@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dp54@mc4adm.UWaterloo.ca
(Rob Silcher) wrote:
> I decided to give Extapress 1600 a try at a wedding. I shot the entire
> roll in the church. I thought I'd give it a try so I wouldn't need to use
> a flash. I've never used anything higher than 400 so this was a new 
> experience for me.
> I just got the pictures back today. Now I know that I should be expecting
> lots of grain so that's not a problem. However I didn't expect the colors
> to be so awful. All the pictures seem washed out in a pale yellowish color.

Rob-

It sounds as if you are the victim of incandescent lighting used with
daylight film.  There was another recent posting, where daylight film was
used in an art museum with similar results.

The consensus of opinion seems to be to use a blue filter on your camera,
such as 80C or 80D.  However, your situation may not be as clear cut.  Many
churches have considerable stained glass, which could contribute additional
"contaminated" light of various colors.  Even if the light coming in from
the outside isn't tainted, it provides a blend with indoor light, which may
be difficult to balance.

The negatives you have may be impossible to print to perfection.  However,
that is the best hope you have at the moment.  Even if the colors are off,
they should be able to print them a little darker, so they won't be so
washed out.

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Leica, why so high?
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:32:06 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure

dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM writes quoting someone at CWRU (judging
from the Reference: header) but whose name didn't make it this far down
the line:

>>A friend lately sold a Leica M-3 DS and a three lenses to a Japanese gentleman
>>who said, regarding the legendary Leica quietness...when the shutter is
>>released it makes the sound of the gentlest raindrop falling on a blade
>>of grass".
>
>>You have to pay for that kind of poetry
>
>Just a little hyperbole, too... the Leica M's aren't THAT quiet.
>If really quiet in a 35mm is what's wanted, try one of those non-
>interchangeable lens rangefinders of the 60s & 70s, with the lens-
>shutters and no motor advance.

Indeed!  I have one, made by Canon.  Silent as a camera can get! 
(Though on longer shutter speeds you can hear a slight buzz in addition
to the sound of the shutter opening and closing.)  But at 1/125?
ahhhhh....

View camera shutters are, of course, also quiet.  Why disturb the
beautiful quiet of the forest with an obnoxious <clunk> <whirrrrrrrr>
when you can have a mere <tick> instead?

Geoff ``Mr. Quiet'' Allen

-- 
Geoff Allen          \  That's the problem with nature. Something's always
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \  stinging you or oozing mucous on you.  Let's go
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \  watch TV. -- Calvin, speaking to Hobbes
From: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: How do you pronounce Leica?
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:58:02 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Like, I like a leica.  Like-a that.

	Dave
From: jacobs@cerritos.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: about N90 and new F4
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:18:29 PST
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA

In article <BvAq3F.B8y.1@cs.cmu.edu>, phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Gleichauf) writes:
> In article <NICHOLS.92Sep27144631@offa.cs.odu.edu>, nichols@offa.cs.odu.edu (teresa nichols) writes:
> |> 
> |> To any of you have played with the demo model - I did yesterday. Nice feel
> |> sharp focusing, excellent design. From a confirmed Canon addict, I was
> |> very impressed with the feel of the camera itself.
> |> 
> 
> 	It is interesting how sharply impressions can differ from opposite 
> sides of the Canon-Nikon camps.  I too had a chance to play with an N90
> fresh out of the box. (one of three sitting on the shelf).  My impression 
> is that this is not a professional level camera because of the control layout.
> It is difficult not to just find the controls, that could be a learned in time,
> but also to access them with eye remaining at the finder.  The F4 finder is also
> more informative.  As an excellent high end advanced amateur camera it will
> probably find a solid market niche. It cannot replace the F3 in professional
> terms, as someone else has posted, but it may be substituted in the product line
> because of slumping F3 sales. Everything I tried worked well and relatively
> quickly, but I would not use it as a second body for sports photography, as yet
> another poster mentioned.  The functionality is not seamless and access is not
> quick enough for very fast action useage.
> 



	 First of all, The F4 was designed to replace the F3. The other mid
level cameras that Nikon produces will not replace an F* line camera. 
	Second, this may not have occured to any of you out there yet who are
touting the n90 as Nikon's next professional camera should realize that Nikon
will be introducing a new upgraded F4 with all the fancy new electronics to
take advantage of the new SB25. This will probably happen in the next year or
so to better compete with the Canon system. Nikon will certainly want the
better auto-focus and metering in the F4. If you remember it was a year and a
half after the 8008 came out that the F4 was introduced.
	Also, for those of you out there who remember the F3, you will know
that the F3 was upgraded at least 3 times during it's production run as well as
having more than one version, (F3, F3HP, F3T, F3P).

Karl

Go ahead, flame me , see if I care:)
________________________________________________________________________________Karl Jacobs - Jacobs@cerritos.edu

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jreiser@scott.skidmore.edu (jason reiser)
Subject: Re: Basement Darkroom
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 08:06:47 GMT

rpaul@netcom.com (Raymond E. Paul) writes:
> I am considering setting up a basement darkroom, but I can forsee a problem.
> The pipe which delivers waste water to the main pipe in the street exits my 
> house about 1/2 way up my basement wall. In order to have running water in 
> my basement, I'm going to need to pump the waste uphill somehow or have a 
> darkroom that doubles as a toxic swimming pool.
> 
> Anyone out there solved this problem?
> -- 
> Raymond E. Paul		rpaul@netcom.com

I think that my problem was basically the same as yours.  My darkroom
is also in the basement and the waste pipe (not to city drainage, but
septic tank) is about 6 feet off the ground.  I have basic PVC pipe
running to a tank (approx. 6 gallons) with a pump to the waste pipe.
Anytime the water level in the tank exceeds a certain level (about 1/2
gallon), the pump turns on and forces the water out.  BTW, I didn't do
that part of the work, but I believe it is relevent that the PVC pipe
that leads from the pump to the waste pipe goes above the waste pipe
and circles back down.  That probably keeps the waste from entering my
pump.  

Good Luck!
					- Jason
From: mtoms@ems.cdc.com (Mark Toms)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Lighting Technique (Questions On)
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:37:47 GMT
Reply-To: mtoms@ems.cdc.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

Hello,

  I was thinking about setting up a studio in my house and was wondering
how other photographers resolve a particular problem.  Namely, how do
you eliminate the line formed by the backdrop (where it meets the floor)?
For example, I was thinking of using a roll of paper (like 5 feet wide) 
for the backdrop and arranging it so that if there were no subject, it 
would be the only thing in view.


                                                 |  top
                                                 |
                                                 |
           camera                                |
                                                 |
                                                 | 
                                                 |
                                                 |  
           --------------------------------------   floor


  The dashed lines represent the paper.  

  I want to eliminate/minimize the noticability of the line formed in
the corner (above).

  O.K.  now if the floor is carpeted, won't the paper be wrinkled/dirtied
when pepole stand on it?

  I was looking at some photographs in magazines and it seemed that
some of them were a little bright (overexposed/washed out) in this area.
Is this the technique?

  Last, is there a decent book that describes, in some detail, this sort 
of thing?  Set-up's etc.


  Any and all help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Mark

==========================================================================
J. Mark Toms                                email: mtoms@ems.cdc.com
Baltimore Gas & Electric, Company
C/O Empros Systems International            Phone: (612) 553-4423
2300 Berkshire Lane North                     FAX: (612) 553-4018
Plymouth, Minnesota  55441-3694 USA      Mailstop: PLY060
==========================================================================
From: clissman@ccvax.ucd.ie
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: LINEAR/CIRCULAR POLARISERS ON AF CAMERAS ??
Summary: CAN I USE LINEAR ?
Keywords: FILTERS, AF CAMERAS
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:12:37 GMT
Organization: University College Dublin

I have been told that AF cameras won't work with linear polarising filters and
that (more expensive) circular polarisers are needed. I have an EOS 1000,
called a Rebel in the US, and was told that if i fitted a linear polariser
I would have to focus manually. But i got one for free, and the camera still
seems to AF fine on the EF 38-80 zoom that came with it. Am I doing harm to the
camera using a linear filter, or am i being ripped off by dealers telling me
stories to get me to buy circular polarisers. 
Incidentally, I got the filters to enhance contrast and color on Himalayan
photos I intend to start taking next week, so a quick response, via email
or posting, would be greatly appreciated.

By the way, could it be that the camera AF's OK but the pictures come out
blurred ?
Yours in ignorance

Ciaran
	CLISSMAN@CCVAX.UCD.IE
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Binders for archival slide pages?
Summary: Anything I need to know?
Keywords: archival slide pages binders
Date: 27 Sep 92 04:12:34 GMT

I bought a bunch of Print File archival slide pages, but am wondering
if there are any special considerations as to the kind of binder I put
them in.

I'm not too clear as to what chemicals affect slides (and indeed, if
there are different considerations for E-6 vs K-14, etc.), nor the
composition of binders, glue, etc.

Help!

Thanks.

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: accwai@math.uwaterloo.ca (Andy Wai)
Subject: Re: 4x5 Developing Tank and Polaroid 55 posi/neg questions
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:25:21 GMT

In article <22544@venera.isi.edu> finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
>
>	Concerning Polaroid type 55 Positive/Negative B&W film ...
>after treating the negative in sulfite solution, the claim is that the
>negative produced has a very high resolution.  [...]

My experience is it works ok, but isn't terribly fine grain by today's
standard.

>Any wierd negative characteristics?

My tests indicates that the negative is about half the speed as the
print, has a contrast of about N+1 and has very pronounce shoulder.
And unlike regular Polaroid b&w print films, "development" control
has no effect on the type 55, as far as I know.

>[...]  The print you get from 545-class Polaroid is about
>3.5-by-4.5 inches.  What size is the negative?

The negatives are a hair bigger than 4x5.  Regular 4x5 carriers should
accept them without problem.  They are rather floppy though, so you
might have a hard them keeping them flat with glassless carriers.
Anyway, the image area is actually bigger than 3x5x4.5, but the print
border mask leaves a faint impression on the negative (probably because
it screws up the diffuse transfer).  So the "clean" part of the image
is still only 3.5x4.5.

Andy Wai
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: news@walter.bellcore.com
Subject: Re: Opinions on the Canon EF 28mm.
Reply-To: jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 03:57:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.205304.1505@news.columbia.edu> fag2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Farul A Ghazali) writes:
>
>Does anybody have any good/bad comments about the Canon EF 28mm lens?
>How does it compare to a zoom, say the EF 28-70mm II or the EF 28-80mm
>USM (the 28mm end, of course)? Thanks.
>

It is superior lens carrying a bargain price tag. Go get one while they
last. Not only it easily outperforms either of the zoom lenses optically,
it also gives you f2.8 instead of f3.5.

I got a 28-80, but still use the 28 a lot.
C. Jason Chen 
jchen@wind.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Help wanted with depth of field problems !!!
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:54:03 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Sep28.114837.1984@nodecg.ncc.telecomwa.oz.au> cstone@nodecg.ncc.telecomwa.oz.au (Charlie Stone 4915162) writes:
>I need some assistance from the experts on a black and white photographic 
>conundrum - if you are an optimist please call it a challenge.
>
>I would like to photograph a model of a steam pumping engine from the same 
>aspect as a photo that already exists of the original full sized machine.
>
>This model fills an approximately cubic space or box of 36 inches length,
>21 inches wide and 25 inches high.  The lens must be placed at about half
>the height of the box and directed along the diagonal (so that you can see
>both a side and the end of the box).  To duplicate the original picture
>the lens will have to be about 12 inches from the nearest corner, 40 inches 
>from the corner at the end of the left hand visible face, and 23 inches
>from the corner at the end of the right hand visible face. 
>
>I would like the photo to be razor sharp (like the original) and to be
>free of the distortion associated with a fish eye lens.  
>
>I have been having difficulties with depth of field (getting it all in focus)
>and with fitting the whole machine into the photo.
>
>The cameras available are a 5 by 4 speed graphic, a 5 by 4 view camera,
>a 35 mm SLR or a 2 1/2 inch square SLR. 
>
>Is this an impossible task with the equipment available?
>What is the longest focal length that could be used?
>Is there a more suitable camera for the task?

It is really expensive, but not all that hard.  First of all, the top
of the box is 12.5inches up and 12 inches away from the lens.  Lets
just say it was 12 inches up.  Now the distance from the center to the
top edge of 35mm film is 12 mm, so by similar triangles, you need
about a 12mm lens.  (Careful calculation comes out 11.52mm.)  This is
specialist EXPENSIVE stuff.  I don't know if a lens this short is
available that does not suffer fisheye distortion.  The depth of field
is not really all that bad.  If I calculated right, you only need
f/5.8 to get a .03mm circle of confusion.   I'm not really sure I
believe in .03mm, so use f/11 and be safe.  You should focus at 18.4
inches away.  At f/11 the region in sharp focus (.03mm criterion)
ranges from 9.25 inches to infinity.

I didn't do all the calculations for larger formats, the same logic I
used says that you need about a 50mm lens for 4x5.  I'm no 4x5 expert;
ask one of them if a 50mm lens is available that can still cover the
full 4x5 area.  I'm not sure what sharpness criterion is right for
4x5.  If I use .1mm (sounds too big to me), then I get that you should
focus at 17.8 in and use f/127 (ie 128).  But f/128 is getting pretty
small.  Diffraction alone will limit you to 11 lppmm at f/128.  So
diffraction and depth of field are contributing about the same amount.
So you can't go either way with the f-stop without losing quality.

  -- David Jacobson
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best)
Subject: Re: What is Barcodes ???
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:56:37 GMT
Organization: your service

Well, one obvious use of "bar-coding" is for DX encoding.
This may not be what you meant, but nobody has mentioned
it yet.

DX codes are the black and silver squares printed on
the film cannister - some cameras are able to read this
and set the proper ASA automatically.

It's not a "bar code" exactly, since that usually means
something that is read optically (DX codes are usually
read electrically, with contacts touching the cannister),
but's along then lines of what you're asking about.
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lens Focusing (was Re: lens tests..)
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:14:58 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

In article <3830317@hpldsla.sid.hp.com>, tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich) writes:
> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
> 
> # In article <1992Sep24.232108.14002@odin.corp.sgi.com>, donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis) writes:
> # > 
> # > |> In article <1992Sep22.201647.8945@truevision.com>,
> # > frank@truevision.com (Frank Loffel) writes:
> # > 

Could some one please feed the net-kraken then repost this thread? The black-
hole has chopped off the front of this thread, and I can't take the frustration
any more...

~Paul
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hyunj@crockett1b.its.rpi.edu (John Hyun)
Subject: Want to buy some Canon equipment...
Keywords: Buy, sale, equipment
Reply-To: hyunj@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:21:14 GMT

If anyone is considering to sell some of the Canon FD series
equipment, drop me a line with item list and price. 
I am considering to buy some if they are in good shape at good price.
Please, only serious offers respond.
Thank you,
John Hyun
hyunj@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dsp@halcyon.com (Papillon)
Subject: ASMP (c) Guide, II
Summary: include in request
Keywords: Your address
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:01:21 GMT

  I'd left out the above info. in my 1st post. If you'd like a copy of
the ASMP Copyright Guide, please include your address in your request and
I'll get it out right away.

   Thanks all,

      Don


 Don Smith Photography
 dsp@halcyon.com

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tab62@isuvax.iastate.edu (   )
Subject: Re: Canon EOS 10s
Reply-To: tab62@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:18:04 GMT

In article <28SEP199218415005@envmsa.eas.asu.edu>, gunawan@envmsa.eas.asu.edu (iwan gunawan) writes:
>In article <1992Sep21.205201.10737@walter.bellcore.com>, jkc@pyuxf.uucp
>(25312-choe) writes...
>
>>I'm considering buying a Canon EOS 10s camera.  Can anyone shed
>>some light as to if this is a good buy or not.
>
>I bought a 10s about a year and a half ago, and I'm definitely happy with
>it.  I was going for Nikon 8008S at first, but since Nikkor lenses cost
>more than Canon lenses, I took the 10s.  The only thing I miss so much from
>the camera is the spotmetering.

Partial metering is sort of spot metering, isn't it?  Granted it reads 8.5%
of the pix area.  With 300mm tele it is quite useful.  I wonder what you
meant by spotmetering....  1 degree spot?   
>
>-- iwan gunawan
>   gunawan@envmsa.eas.asu.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Chong Siak     Iowa State University  Ames  Iowa   tab62@isuvax.iastate.edu                            
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: rec.photo