HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wally@boi.hp.com (Wally Overton)
Subject: Kodalux vs Fuji for E-6 processing
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:06:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


I was very disappointed with the results I got the last time I sent a quantity
of film to Kodalux (Qualex).  They screwed up the sequential numbering on
several rolls, mis-registered a number of mounts, with no justification (Not
Nikonos II shots, explanation later), and after one roll reached me, I waited a
week for the rest.  It seemed they held all but one roll, waiting for the
"missing" roll to show up.  In a separate incident, a quick and easy color print
I sent to Qualex through a local photo shop came back garbaged up three times.
They claimed that nothing better could be done with the neg.  The problem
appeared to be reflections from their negative carrier.  A local lab, finely,
had no problem.

This time I tried a different approach for a large bunch of slides.  I
purchased Fuji E-6 mailers from Adorama for, I believe, $3.19.  As I had 29
rolls to send in, I didn't want to spend $16.82 on stamps. (With Kodalux I
could drop them in a photo store pouch.)  After putting the rolls in the
mailers, I put them in a box, and mailed it first class, to Fuji in Phoenix for
about $5.  The finished slides returned exactly one week later, in a priority
mail, second day box.  The quality is excellent, and as over half the film is
Velvia, those slides are mounted in special "Velvia" mounts.  A nice touch.
They also had no trouble with a couple of rolls with uneven spacing, taken with
a Nikonos II. (This happens because the Nikonos II lacks a sprocket wheel and
just takes up the film on a drum.)  This has been a problem with some labs,
though this was not the excuse for Qualex. 

--

 ////////   Wally Overton, wally@hpdml45.boi.hp.com, (208) 323-2819   \\\\\\\\
 \\\\\\\\      Disk Memory Division, Hewlett-Packard, Boise, ID       ////////
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wiltz@after (David Wiltz)
Subject: Re: Which camera do I buy?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:45:52 GMT

First of all, don't worry about the posting, the net is here so we can all help 
each other, and there is no truly trivial question.

Now to the heart of the matter.

If you're looking to understand photography from the inside out, I'd suggest
that you start out like so many beginners do, with a *very* basic SLR.

Look around in thrift stores, etc.  I'd be willing to bet that you can find a
Pentax K-1000 with a 50mm lens for around $125 American.  This a a great camera
for learning photography, as it will make you do *everything*.

Next, take some time, a drop, oh, lets just say 10000, rolls of file through that
K-1000, playing with anything that interests you.  See what you like, what you don't,
and what you feel you can work with.

Now go out and drop the money into a camera which you feel will satisfy those needs
and wants.  Look for how expandable the system is, how you feel about the possible
weights of the equipment, etc.

Oh, by the way.  DON'T get rid of that K-1000.  It's a body that I still turn to when I 
need a basic, very reliable camera for some particular reason.

-Dave
--
   David Wiltz                                wiltz@after.math.uiuc.edu
   Calculus&Mathematica Development Team
   University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  NeXTmail always welcome!
-Doing business with the government is a lot like playing poker with God.-
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Re: Changing N8008 for the new Canon?
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:26:00 GMT

| How much difference is there between the exposure you select through
| spotmetering [matrix metering?] vs. the exposure selected by spotmetering?
| ...If it's less than a stop, then just bracket a bit.  The time spent
| evaluating the scene may not be worth the extra dollar or so worth of
| film and processing.
						-Alvin C.Shih

In difficult lighting conditions, the difference can be much more than
one stop. Much of the time, I agree that it's simply not worth the time
to take multiple spot readings. But that's the point: in scenes of normal
contrast, the difference in exposure readings between matrix metering and
the old center-weighted metering probably IS less than a stop. Matrix
metering is an improvement, but not worth hocking your grandmother for.

| Marketing could be defined as the crime of making otherwise intelligent
| engineers think irrationally about the product being developed.

Yes, what a waste of talent! The guys who spend their time figuring out
new bells and whistles could probably build quite a camera...

					-Alan


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: castellano_joe@Tandem.com (JoeCastellano)
Subject: Konica Infrared 750 B&W Film
Organization: Tandem Computers
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:16:59 GMT

Looking for some help on using Konica's infrared Balck & White
 35 mm Film.
This is a Photo Class assignment requiring photographs using
Infrared Film.
I been told that Konica's Infrared Film is easier to use
and process that Kodak's 2481?? Is this true ??

Looking for advice and or hints on picture taking and processing.
Seems like outdoor images of greenery generate some interesting
effects. Any ideas for subjects ??
I will be doing my own film processing so any thoughts on this
would also be appreciated.

Thanks in advance;
                    Joe Castellano
Tandem Computers
408 285-4221
  
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sparks@col.hp.com (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: mixed light, film, and filters
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:54:31 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

In article <1992Nov20.005403.16161@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM> ralandc@tara.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Raland Camara) writes:
>  What do you do when you may have multiple temperature light sources 
>  as described above?  Is there an easy way to caluculate what the best 
>  film type might be? and the correct compensation filters if any?

The best things to do is either make multiple exposures, each with only
one type of light each exposure filtered for the light in use, or filter 
each light source to match.  I used to work for an architectual photographer 
and we always did one or the other.  We carried daylight and incandescent 
balanced fluorescent tubes that we would replace the existing tubes with.
We carried big sheets of daylight-to-tungsten to cover the outsides of
windows (though we usually worked at night to avoid this source, since 
it made multiple exposures impossible).  We only used flash for fill if
the illmuination was daylight or daylight balanced fluorescent tubes 
(these were Deluxe Cool White bulbs that cost about $20 each for 4 foot
tubes), otherwise we used incandescents for fill.  If the only sources
are flash and fluorescents, you can filter the camera lens for the 
fluorescents (some magenta filter) and the flash with the opposite filter 
(green) to match the light to the flurorescents.  I have read that 
Fuji Reala balances daylight, flash and Fluorescents well, but even it 
won't handle incandescents too.  I have never used Reala for this purpose.

If you cannot go to these extremes, your best bet is to filter for the
predominant light source and hope the others will not interfere too much
(or just use black and white film).

John Sparks
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: EOS Rebel IIs vs competitors
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:11:15 GMT

In article <ROBERTW.92Nov20094017@bmerh654.bnr.ca>, robertw@bmerh654.bnr.ca (Robert Williams) writes:
..
The REBEL non S is worth looking at. You lose the flash, a lifetimes supply of
red-eye and a hole in the pocket where the 2CR5 used to be. 
The non S rebel/1000s are cheaper as well. If you can get a good discount on
a rebel ( non s, non II ) you can probably get a 300EZ or 3rd party flash
with the difference. The only plus on the II over the original IMHO is the
higher sync speed.

The reble is I feel the best starter 35mm SLR around. It is an 'honest cheapy'.
No, it won't out last an F or F1, and won't out perform a F4 or EOS-1, but
it can be used FULLY manualy, to full auto-everything. And it is light enough
for kids to use. Its a pity its not sold 'standard' with the 50 f1.8 rather
than the crappy zooms they fit. You can fit all of the EF stuff on it, from
the 15mm fish-eye, all the way up to the 1200mm f5.6L.
You can add to your first body then trade/get another without worrying about
compatability. Welll, that not perfectaly correct, but if you are using 'old'
FD L 300mm+ lenses you probably wouldn't be looking at a rebel... :-)

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hamish@netcom.com (Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic)
Subject: Re: Ilfochrome prints in a Jobo CPE-2 Plus?
Keywords: cibachrome, ilfochrome, jobo
Organization: Pandemonia PLC
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:08:50 GMT

In article <7ceM02EF2bnG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman) writes:
>Matt Nelson writes:
>
>>So.  Has anybody out there ever done Ilfochrome prints (formerly Cibachrome)
>>in a Jobo CPE-2 Plus processor?  The Cibachrome book sez that one should not
>>exceed 35 rpm during processing, but the CPE-2 Plus has only one speed:
>>70 rpm.  [...]

>Anyway, the two things which could be a problem with over-agitation, which
>is what we're really talking about here, are over-development with 
>resultant greater contrast and uneven development due to the developer
>being thrown towards the ends of the tube.

I have done quite a lot of Cibachrome printing with my little CPE-2,
and it has been mostly pretty succesful, even with the single (high)
speed of rotation. I stick pretty closely to Ilford's recommended times
and quantities; it seems to work.

As Barry suggests, the resulting contrast seems a bit higher than
usual, which can certainly be a pain (don't get me started on
Cibachrome and high contrast...); on the other hand, I haven't noticed
any unusual problems with uneven development, streaking, bad colour
shifts, etc - but you need to be very careful (as always) with getting
the tube level (not quite the same thing, unfortunately, as getting
the CPE level, but that's another frustrating story of poor
engineering...).

I'd say certainly give it a try - it worked for me....

	Hamish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Reid   +1 510 596-3917   hamish@netcom.com   hamish@sybase.com
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Resolution of Lens ???
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:09:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsm.1992Nov19.180913.3777
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov19.025409.2162@walter.bellcore.com>, jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen) writes:
> In article <1992Nov18.192154.236@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
> >since the resolution made by the latter technique is also influenced by the
> >film resolution (and maybe by camera shake!). This is clearly seen by the fact
> >that it is almost impossible to get more than 100 lp/mm when testing any lens
> >using normal film (including K25, Velvia, or Tech Pan), wheras almost any
> >lens shows higher resolution than this in the film plane. I have a 500mm f5
> >that clearly resolves over 250 lp/mm in the film plane and yet I have never
> >measured better than 80 lp/mm on film (Velvia), despite using the bigest
> >tripod I can carry (Bogen 3051) and mirror lock-up.
> >
> Indeed, I found the film resolution to be the most limiting factor in most
> cases. However, I don't think 100 lp/mm is hard to achieve. With a good 
> microscope (not those found in Toys'r Us), TMAX-100, and well saturated 
> exposures, you should be able to resolve close to 125 lp/mm.
> 

Jason,
     Do you speak from experience or theory? I know from published film
specs that I SHOULD be able to resolve 125lp/mm, but I can't. I use a 
Zeiss microscope (not available form Toys'R Us!) to examine negatives and
slides. The resolution just isn't there. There was an article which I have
somewhere at home, in which Modern Photography tried to resolve >100 lp/mm
using every trick they could. Flash exposure, the best (Nikon, Canon, Zeiss,
Leica) 50mm lenses, the sharpest (Tech Pan, K25 and a bunch of other) films
they shot at all apertures to get the best possible results etc... They found
that the BEST lens at its BEST aperture on the BEST film could only just
squeak by with 100 lp/mm (maybe 101 or 102 lp/mm). They could easily get
numbers in the high 80's to low 90's but 100 lp/mm was very, very hard.
Even then these numbers were only in the center of the field.
If you have test slides or negatives showing 100 lp/mm resolution (vertical
and horizontal patterns resolved) I'd really like to see them and try to
figure out what I'm doing wrong!

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Minox camera?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:06:59

It sounds like you have a Minox B, because of the way the ASA
and shutter speed are linked.  If it is a B, it should also have
a crescent shaped window for the moving needle lightmeter.
If it doesn't have a meter, it might be a BL (I've never seen
a BL, as they are rather rare).  If I remember correctly, the 
ASA and speed dials on the C worked independently of each other.
If the highest shutter speed is 1/2000 and the shutter release
is rectangular instead of round, you have an LX, the current
very expensive model.  (I had a C until it got stolen and have
played with B's and LX's).

Minox subminis take 9.5mm film in a special Minox cartridge.
You can get preloaded cartridges in good camera stores, or order from
a specialty place called Microtec in San Diego (call directory assistance
for the phone #).  Microtec will sell you Minox-loaded cartridges,
custom-loaded cartridges with most any kind of film you want including
infrared, and equipt. to slit 35mm film and load it into your own
cartridges, but their prices are a little steep.

With the C, you load film by pulling the camera to picture-taking
position, then pressing in on a recessed crescent shaped thumbnail
lever on the underside of the camera.  I'm not sure if it worked the
same way on the B and BL.

One annoying thing about the B and BL (but not C or LX) is that
every time you open and close the camera, the film gets advanced,
whether you take a picture or not.

Minoxes are great fun and take excellent pictures for such small
cameras, especially the C and LX which had better optics than the
earlier Minoxes.  The C took better pictures than any 110 camera
I've ever used, because of its excellent lens.

For more info on how to use older models, see the book "Small Minox,
Big Pictures" by Rolf Kasemeier if you can find a copy.  For history
and identification info, see "Spy Camera, the Minox Story" by William
Moses (I think I got that right, my copy is at home).  The latter
book came out a year or so ago and is still in print.
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Backwards lens compatibility (was Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought)
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:17:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <384@biosys.apldbio.COM> mpc@apldbio.com (Morgan Conrad) writes:
>[lots of stuff about putting old Nikkor lenses on new Nikon bodies deleted]
>
>  Don't forget the reverse - putting new Nikkor AF lenses on old
>bodies.  I can use the latest Nikkor glass with my tough, lightweight,
>all mechanical FM-2.  And, should I eventually get a newer body,
>the lens will still work.  Canon users can't do this, which
>I think is a big minus.

Not strictly correct:

Among the manual-focus Canon SLRs, you *can* use later lenses with
earlier bodies.  Pre-FD bodies can't meter wide-open, but otherwise
work just fine (just as though they were working with FL lenses).

I believe that R-series bodies can use FL and FD lenses in manual-only
mode...but that's how the R-series lenses worked, too.

FD and earlier bodies won't accept EF lenses, but that's the way it
goes.  I believe the choice to go to the new mount will turn out to
have been the right way to go in the long term; staying compatible
with the FD mount would have been more costly in the long term.

(For the majority of potential users, it's a non-issue: most sales of
new cameras come from either new users, who have no investment in any
previous system, or users switching from some other manufacturer's
line.  We may be more noisy individually, but we are a financial minority
to Canon.  Also Minolta, etc.)

Canon seems to be doing pretty well since they introduced the EOS
line, as do Minolta post-Maxxum.



--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
-------------------------------------------------------
From: jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Info wanted on Nikon N90 vs. Minolta 9xi--what to buy...
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:23:21 GMT
Organization: I would rather be windsurfing.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com
In-reply-to: usenet@adobe.com's message of Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:53:49 GMT


> The advertisers would have us believe that the excellence of a camera
> system depends on *features*. In reality, the excellence of a camera 
> system depends largely on LENSES.

Personally, I think it has more to do with the photographer behind the
camera.  The difference between a cheap Kalimar lense and an expensive
Nikon lense isn't going to be a very significant factor unless you're
making huge enlargements.  In fact, some of my best pictures were
taken with my cheapest lense: a 500MM f/8 like the one that Ritz
Camera sells.
--
============================================================================
Jeffrey Glen Jackson  _|_Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna
jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com |     bust you up tonight."
x5120                  | Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day."
                   ~~~~~~~~~ -- Carman, "The Champion"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ptse@bcars65b.bnr.ca (Paul Tse)
Subject: Re: Litheon batteries (Lithium)
Keywords: battery
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:08:55 GMT

In article <BxptCH.Fp8.1@cs.cmu.edu> phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Gleichauf) writes:
>are not quite ready for the US market, though they have appeared in Europe and
>Japan.


They've also appeared in Canada.  Although I've never used them 
or tested them, I have read a warning printed in a French photo
magazine that some cameras (e.g. Nikon F-801s) will not work with
the higher voltage of the Lithium AAs.  ...no more info, just 
thought y'all better be careful.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Passport Photos
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:36:13 GMT


I need a "passport" sized photo for an ID card.
I can't pass this up as an opportunity to play with
my cameras - even if it would be easier and cheaper
to pop down to the local one hour photo store.

Does anyone know the specs for a passport-sized photo?


-- 
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.
From: tls@solbourne.com (Tom Schreur)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: exposure compensation with extention, how?
Date: 18 Nov 1992 17:20:12 -0700
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: koh_samui.solbourne.com


OK netters, I need some help.

I want to do some macro work with the 4x5.  I'm trying to understand how
to compensate for extention when figuring out exposure.


Lets say I'm using a 135mm f5.6 lense with the aperature at f8 and procced from there.

my thought processes was to: 
1.) figure diameter of a given aperature ( diameter of aperature = focal length/fstop ).
    135/8 = 16.875mm for my stated lense.

2.) figure extention past the 135mm of the lense ( lets say 100mm ).  Add this to the 
    focal length of the lense ( 135mm + 100mm = 235mm ). 

3.) divide the result of step 2 by the result of step 1 to get my effective aperature.
    235mm/16.875mm = 13.9 

This would then be the f-stop I would use in flash calculations.

Right? Wrong?

Any input would be welcomed.

thank,

tls

tls@solbourne.com

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ADMSRUBN@VM.UWP.EDU
Subject: Nikon 20mm f2.8 AF--is it worth the price?
Organization: UW-Parkside
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:20:15 GMT

I've seen it but haven't shot with it.  Is the Nikon 20mm f2.8 auto focus lens
worth the money?  Any comments would be appreciated.  Thanks.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jenny@gphs.vuw.ac.nz (Jenny Rollo)
Subject: Which camera do I buy?
Organization: Institute of Geophysics, Victoria University of Wellington, NZ
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:52:08 GMT

I have just subscribed to this newsgroup and realise that everyone reading this is very well versed with photography, cameras, lenses etc.  I have always had a point and shoot camera, whose most elaborate feature is autofocus.  Recently I
have become in the position to afford a better camera (i.e I am no longer a student!) and I would really like to get into photography.  I want a good single reflex camera, and I would really appreciate some tips on best brands, models etc.  I hope this isn't too much of a trifling thing to be putting onto this news group as I am a real amateur! Also can anyone recommend any good books to start me off?  I live in New Zealand, where we tend not to get a lot of books from overseas, so if you could please just

 let me know of the titles of some popular ones.

Thank-you in advance for your help.

Jenny Rollo.
jenny@gphs.vuw.ac.nz
From: sh09@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEVEN HIGGINS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Need advice on Nikkor AF 70-210/4.5-6
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:48:15 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov15.091821.19132@news.duc.auburn.edu>, jsoh@eng.auburn.edu (Jo
ngseok Oh) writes:
>I am considering to buy Nikkor AF 70-210/4.5-6 lens now. Could any usrer give m
e some advide or information about this lens ?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>

    I had a 70-210 AF and thought it was a very sharp lens, even in the macro
    range it was quite good a few stops down.  I got rid of it because I have
    a manual focus body (FE) and it was tough to follow action with it.  The
    focus ring only has about 90 degrees of action, from closeup macro to
    infinity.  Optically I was very satisfied with it.

    Cheers..

    
-- 

~Steve
sh09@lehigh.edu
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Disclaimer on Photos
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:36:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov18.202821.29054@umbc3.umbc.edu> haddaway@umbc5.umbc.edu (Mr. Todd Haddaway; ADMIN-COMP) writes:
>I am starting to send concert photos to record companies and magazines.
>What sort of disclaimer message should I stamp on the back to say
>"You can't use this photo unless I give you some sort of permission".
>I want the people to see the photos but not be able to use them unless
>we work out some sort of payment.

The standard formula goes something like this:

	Copyright (c) 1992, Todd Haddaway.
	All rights reserved.

You're *not* required to register your copyright in order to claim protection,
but it *does* help document your claim.

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.photo