HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elau@berlioz.nsc.com (Eugene Lau)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Joshua Tree NM. Need info on photo experiences
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:50:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation

In article <1992Apr6.213138.3748@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
>It is possible I may get out to Joshua Tree National Monument (I think it
>is a NM, I know it's not a National Park - yet), sometime in mid May. I
>would appreciate comments from other photographers who have been there on
>the subject of what and where to photograph. My main interest is in
>wildlife (but anything else is OK too). I believe there are dessert bighorn
>in the area - are they hard to find (I assume so, since all the other
>bighorn sheep seem to be elusive)? Are there any dessert flowers around in
>mid May?
>
>Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs


Don't just go there for the bighorn.  The Cholla (spelling ???) cactus is
beautiful and is about as tall as we are.  It's not a one-piece cactus but a 
"tree" with cacti "branches".  There is a whole garden full of these.  The best
time to photograph them is during sunrise/sunset when they are back-lit.  The 
Joshua tree itself is very good also.

eugene
From: craig@tarts.uk.sun.com (Craig Alsop - Sun UK - Answer Centre)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Diff between OM XA and XA-2?
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:20:44 GMT
Reply-To: craig@tarts.uk.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.


 The XA2 has completely programmed exposure and an f3.5 lens with zone focus

 The XA has aperture priority auto, and an f2.8 lens with rangefider focussing
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: eacj@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Julian Vrieslander)
Subject: Re: How to clean multi-coated filters
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:28:06 GMT

One more comment on the lens and filter cleaning topic.  I also recommend
the Luminex cleaning cloths.  These are now available at many camera shops.
But I have also used ordinary cotton balls, purchased at the local drug
store.  These are good for cleaning really dirty optics, when you are
likely to get one of those little Luminex cloths gummed up.  Cotton is soft
and very absorbent, but you have to be careful to avoid getting fibers
caught in the threads at the periphery of the lens or filter.
-- 
Julian Vrieslander 
Neurobiology & Behavior, Mudd Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853    
INTERNET: eacj@theory.tc.cornell.edu     BITNET: eacj@crnlthry
UUCP: ..cornell!batcomputer!eacj
From: kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Tamron 35-105 F2.8 AF
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:11:26 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Tredyffrin

In article <1992Apr15.042136.3037@a.cs.okstate.edu> ong@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) writes:
>From article <1992Apr14.184721.1470@adobe.com>, by usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS):
>> | I do considerable studio flashwork and really do not like guessing 
>> | at the Fstop.
>> 		  -Becker
>> 
>> The N8008s gives a continuous readout of the *actual* aperture,
>> taking into account lens extension as well as the variable aperture
>> of the 35-105/3.5-4.5. And isn't it true that lens extension needs
>> to be considered even when using a lens with a constant maximum
>> aperture? My 60/2.8 AF Micro loses 1-1/3 stops in going from
>> infinity to close focus.
>
>I wonder the camera indication loss of aperture is via the lens CPU
>telling the camera or it is actual measurement by the camera?  Somebody
>mentioned that Sigma lenses fooled the camera into thinking that it is
>4.0 when it is really 5.6 (or 6.2) in order to make the camera do AF. 

In the last _Nikon World_ (or was it the one before that), there was a
comment on this is the Question and Answer section.  The question was
why does the aperature indicated on the LCD not always match the
aperature on the aperature ring?  The answer indicated that the lens
CPU does the calculation when the lens is focused or zoomed into a
range where the aperature changes.  I don't remember the exact
answer, but I interpreted it to imply that lenses with "constant"
aperature don't have/need the extra software to do the calculations.

Of course we would expect Nikon to include the software when necessary,
but I would have no idea if Sigma would.  The impression that I have
is that Nikon never published a specification for their electronic
camera/lens interface.  And that idependents like Sigma had to
reverse engineer it by taking apart Nikon lenses.  With Sigma's
incompatibilities in the past, I wonder if they truly understand
Nikon's interface enough.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken McFadden        kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com
Unisys Corporation  kjm@cnmsa.tredydev.unisys.com
P.O. Box 203        work: (215) 648-3742
Paoli, PA 19301     home: (215) 675-0382
From: sch@gargoyle.unx.sas.com (Steve Holzworth)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur film processing (NOW tabletop procs).
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:46:49 GMT
    <TONYB.92Apr9120424@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sch@gargoyle.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 2866

In article <TONYB.92Apr9120424@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu>, tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.034925.18155@odin.corp.sgi.com> donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis) writes:
>
>   [ stuff deleted...]
>
>   I can see two problems with metal, though.  One is that they would be
>   noisy (the Printo is deliciously quiet as-is).  The other is that
>   materials for use around the chemistry we're talking about have to be
>   carefully chosen.  The acids and corrosives are might strong in some
>   cases, and metals like "ordinary" stainless steel still don't get the
>   job done.  It's a lot harder to machine stainless steel, which adds to
>   the cost considerably, especially when compared to plastic.
>
>   Besides, if the gears don't give, the torque of stuck rollers is sent
>   all the way back to the motor, which would probably burn out, and I'd
>   rather replace a $6 gear than find out how much they'd have to charge
>   for a new motor.
>
>No offense to the Printo, which by all accounts is a real breakthrough in
>"affordable" roller-transport processors, but I'm somewhat disturbed by
>a design philosophy that results in broken parts due to a common use
>scenario.  If Durst doesn't want to bake the motor when the rollors stick,
>they should stick a current limiting device on it (ie a circuit breaker,
>if they're too cheap for something sophisticated).  $1700 might be cheap
>for what the Printo does, but it is still a lot of money -- I think a $3
>circuit breaker isn't too much to ask for.
>
>Tony Berke

I tend to agree with donl. The use of (presumably) nylon gears is most
likely required to combat corrosive effects of the chemistry. Almost
all of the gears are continuously immersed in the chemistry for the
tank. 
  As far as the "common use" scenario... They DO specifically warn you
to unstick the final stage rollers before cranking up the processor. I
just screwed up the first time: RTFM! The other failure I mentioned
was probably a fluke. Gvien the way the transport path is organized,
it is pretty difficult for the paper to feed back into the same roller
set. Like donl, I've occasionally fed paper in crooked. I haven't really
had a problem with it getting mangled, though. Face it, RC paper isn't
strong enough to resist being driven into an "immovable obect" (the side
of the drive mechanism). It is doubtful that more-robust gearing would
help this. As far as loopback goes, If the paper really jams, I'd rather
have a $6.00 gear go than a $NN.NN roller or metal gear break.
  Like donl, when my gear broke (a small one), I simply moved one from
a non-critical position (driving a passive roller of a pair) into the
active position. This worked fine until a replacement could be had.

donl, do you ever run B/W in your Printo? Do you change processes
at all?

Steve Holzworth
sch@unx.sas.com
From: ar12@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard Nixon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Lab Screw-Up!
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:08:14 GMT
Reply-To: ar12@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Hello,
	I'm writing this post in a state of uncontrolled rage so please
excuse any whatever typos/incoherencies may follow.
 
I just had a photo lab, "The University of Chicago Audio Visual Dept",
RUIN a roll of film. The role was an assignment on which I spent all
of the preceding weekend, not to mention considerable expense. The due
date is tomorrow and so I have NOT A CHANCE IN HELL of reshooting. Their
official response: "We're sorry, but there's nothing we could have done
to have avoided 'it'"   "IT" entailed pushing a roll of EES (exposed
iso 1600) SIX stops instead of the required TWO. So what did they do
about "it"? Well, they ever so generously reimbursed the processing
charge (I'm so grateful- ya, right) and gave me two rolls of Ektachrome
100 in liue of my original roll of ESS which they don't stock. Well folks,
that $7.25 processing reimbursement and whopping $12 of film makes neither
a spit worth of difference nor does it BEGIN to compensate me for the time
lost and missed assignment, the cost of materials, or even the cost of
repairing the damage inflicted by myself on home and personal belongings
after the kindly people at the lab called to inform me to say, "Hi,
remember us? Well, we fucked up, but it wasn't our fault, it was the
machine's, so hey, shit happens, right?"
What I wan't to know, is what kind of legal protection (if any) do      
photographers have against the incompetence of others?
Andre.
       
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sparks@col.hp.com (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: View Camera maganize?
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:23:37 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

In article <kdsSdCi00UhW858ghB@andrew.cmu.edu> lc0v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Luis Abdon Cifuentes) writes:
>I have seen the magazine View Camera mentioned several times in the
>bboard, but I can't find around here.
>Can somebody please post its phone number or address?

I finally remembered to bring the address in.

	View Camera Magazine
	Customer Relatoins Dept.
	2774 Harkness St.
	Sacramento, CA 95818
	(916) 441-2557

	6 issues per year
	$24.00 US, $25.86 in CA, $35 Canada/Mexico, $50 overseas.
From: byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Some arcane questions
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:06:10 GMT
Organization: College of Architecture, Texas A&M University

Focal plane shutters:

Are horizontally-travelling shutters less susceptible to bounce &
vibration than vertically-travelling shutters? If so, why? What's
a good way to test a particular shutter for bounce & vibration?

Nikon AF vs. MF:

Does anyone know a way to find out whether the optical formula of an AF
lens is the same as that of the corresponding MF lens?  For example,
the 20/2.8 is, I believe, the same lens in two guises (I remember
reading this in a Nikon brochure somewhere?). How about the 50/1.4,
it has the same number of groups/elements in both versions. Why does
the 28/2.8 have 3 fewer elements in the AF version? How does it compare
against the 28/2.8 AIs? And so on. Now that Modern Photography is gone,
is anyone publishing resolution/contrast test results for this equipment
any more?

Finally, how about "classics" like the 105/2.5? This must be one of
Nikon's all-time best lenses. Is it going to be produced in an AF
version?
From: bear@harlqn.co.uk (Andy Edwards)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: immaturity on rec.photo
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:21:12 GMT
Organization: Harlequin Limited, Cambridge, England


In article <1992Apr6.183337.27458@noao.edu> Carl Madson writes:

*>Gentlemen,
*> ...[ double click here to expand text ]...
*
*I HAVE been following the thread, since much of the topic is important to 
*serious imaging professionals and users, but my vote's still with Dyer on
*keeping the crap out of rec.photo. It's a potentially useful thread, but

I agree, there are plenty of photographic hand books that describe in
detail photographers copyrights -- can this stuff be directed to
alt.binaries.pictures.whatevercrap (after all we won't catch their
attention/ stop them from infringing copyright(s)) or alt.copyright
where this stuff really belongs.

*personal flames don't belong here.
*
*
*		--Carl Madson, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA

+--: Andy Edwards :----------*=================*------------------------------+
| Macintosh fire fighter,    | Harlequin Ltd.  |      uucp: bear@harlqn.uucp  |
| deity, PostScript language | Barrington Hall |     janet: bear@uk.co.harlqn |
| level 2 porter and PAP     | Barrington      | applelink: harlequin         |
| server clone originator.   | Cambridge       |     voice: 0223 872522       |
|   *Life is strange, yeah   | CB2 5RG         |            +44-223-872-522   |
|     compared to what?*     | England         |       fax: 0223 872519       |
+----------------------------*=================*------------------------------+
From: g8@cbnews.cb.att.com (k.d.tentarelli)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikon AF F2.8 70-200 Lens - Is it worth it?
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:52:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr7.205250.5719
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr7.123504.3515@news.cs.indiana.edu> bose@soupfin.cs.indiana.edu (Bhaskar Bose) writes:

>I currently have a Nikon AF F4.5 70-210 lens.  I have been looking at
>the autofocus F2.8 70-200 lens from NIKON and I am wondering is it
>worth it.  Is the lens that much better than my current lens or will 
>the difference be marginal?

You probably mean the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8.   It is an outstanding lens.
By using a tripod, lens hood, and slow slide films you can get superb
quality from this lens.  Otherwise stick with the lens you already
have as it is much less of a burden to carry.

Ken
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jmb5b@newton.acc.Virginia.EDU (John M. Bozeman)
Subject: Konica TC info/cameral wanted (maybe).
Organization: University of Virginia
Ireallyam: jmb5b
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:26:34 GMT

I am looking for a small, inexpensive, light SLR.  Would the old Konica TC
fill the bill?  Is it a good camera?  Does anyone have one they want t
sell inexpensively?  Can the camera body fit in a coat pocket?

        thanks,

  John    (jmb5b@virginia.edu)
From: j_feldman@blkice.enet.dec.com ( )
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: mechanical cameras
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:57:51 GMT
Reply-To: j_feldman@blkice.enet.dec.com ( )
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <DAVIDD.92Apr6135508@felix.noaapmel.gov>, davidd@noaapmel.gov (David Doll) writes:
|>
|>Hello, I'm new to this newsgroup so if anyone could tell me where/if theres a
|>FAQ, I'd appreciate it. Second, I've been out/away from photography for about
|>15 years or so and I'm now just starting to get back into things. I used to 
|>use a Olympus OM1 for hiking/climbing; it worked great in the cold weather, 
|>light, etc. I've been told they aren't made anymore. Q1: does anyone know of
|>anybody (stores, etc) that still sell them? Q2: what's the state of machanical
|>cameras now-a-days. Any thing I should look out for or avoid. Thanks much for 
|>the help and info.

a1.  Check shutterbug (available at larger newstands), you should have NO
trouble finding old OM1's in excellent or better condition.  Del's comes to
mind as does KEH.  With 50mm lens, shouldn't be more than $160.  Probably some
old Nikons out there too, but I'm not sure what models have mechanical
shutters.  Del's is a Nikon dealer and I would expect they could tell you.

B2.  I'm sure someone will correct me, but I think the only all mechancial
(except the meter) 35mm SLR camera left in production, is the Pentax K1000.

jimf
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: clay@mdd.comm.mot.com (Richard Clay)
Subject: Re: Cambridge - watch out!
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:32:58 GMT

It may depend on what you order.

My photo instructor recomended one of their telephoto lenses (a 
Cambron lense, ie. made for Cambridge).  I ordered it with no 
hassles or problems, and have been very satisfied with it.

Rich Clay
From: johnc@endor.harvard.edu (John Chervinsky)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Twin Lens Reflex Repair Manual Needed...
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:07:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Apr7.140713.8103
Distribution: na
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University



Does anyone know where I may obtain a repair manual or assembly drawing for
the Minolta Autocord TLR?  I have such a camera in need of minor repair
and wish to be able to do it myself and as the occasion arises. A repair
manual for a similar camera such as a Rollie or a Yashica would even be a
great help.

Does anyone have experience doing this sort of work? Other than the
shutter,these cameras seem to be pretty simple mechanically.

I have access and experience with a complete machine shop so I could make
the required spanner wrenches ect.

Thank you in advanve for your advice.

John Chervinsky
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jmb5b@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (John M. Bozeman)
Subject: Russian/Mechanical cameras
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 06:40:03 GMT

From: lnieplo3@ua1ix.ua.edu (Jaroslaw Nieplocha)
Message-Id: <9204142202.AA155878@ua1ix.ua.edu>
To: jmb5b@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: mechanical cameras
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Organization: The University of Alabama
Cc: 
Status: RO


Russian cameras are so poorly made that this price is much to high even
considering Nikon lens compatibility. I had a ZENIT myself (Pentax lens mount)
and would never recommend it. Moreover, you never should trust the shutter speed.
According to some lab tests the actual speed may vary in 30-40% range. They also
may have other annoying mechanical problems which you would not expect from
a decent camera. Mine, for example, from time to time tore the film.
Replacement warranty is another warning sign.            

P.S. I cannot post it to rec.photo. My server is messed up.

Jarek Nieplocha


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dpalace@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dick Palace)
Subject: Instruction Manual Needed (Gossen Luna-Pro F)
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
Distribution: rec.photo
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 12:42:42 GMT


If anyone has an instruction manual for the Gossen Luna-Pro F that
they would like to get rid of, I will take it off their hands
for a fair price. 

Or, if someone would be kind enough to make me a copy, I would of 
course pay the costs.

Thanks,

Dick
--
Dick Palace         Goddard Space Flight Center      (301) 286-9464

dpalace@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: kting@cse.unl.edu (Kea Ting)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Sigma 400 5.6 APO thoughts
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:02:13 GMT
Distribution: rec.photo
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

pbk@mtuxo.ATT.COM (54524-P.KIDD(MT5502)0000) writes:


>		
>	I have read the current news concerning the SIGMA 400 5.6 APO lens and
>seem to be confused. One person who just purchased a Nikon F4 states that this
>lens only autofocuses 10-15% of the time in bright daylight. I checked a Nikon
>brochure and found the spec stating a maximum aperture of 5.6 is required for
>electronic focus assistance.

>	However, Nikon makes several lenses with variable maximum aperture
>(zooms) some of which have maximum aperture of 5.6. They do not seem to put a
>restriction on them. How can Sigma market a lense as autofocus that only 
>autofocuses 10-15% of the time. As mentioned they also make a 1000 f8 
>(also a 500 f7.2) which they claim to be autofocus.
     The sigma 400mm f5.6 AF lens work fine on my minolta 7000i. It focus
every time when I want to focus on somthing. The reason why the lens does not
work on the Nikon F4, I don't know why. It should, because the F4 is Nikon
top of the line Af camera.  I guess the possibility of defective camera is
pretty high. 

soon.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shun@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (shun.cheung)
Subject: Re: Nikon FA, FE2, FE feature summary request
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:55:44 GMT

In article <5360748@hplsla.hp.com> andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino) writes:
>grant@eecg.toronto.edu (Grant Goodes) writes:
>> 
>> The FE is a very
>> good camera, and the only reason I traded up was that the FE was so
>> much the ideal camera for me that the FE2 (being very similar plus
>> some improvements) looked like the 35mm camera for the rest of my life.
>
>Yup, to be moderately cynical about this, I've often wondered if this isn't
>why Nikon discontinued them. I'd still buy two new FE2's at the drop of 
>the hat (at a reasonable price, that is), but have been uninterested in 
>the N8008, etc.

Well, I got my FE back in 1978 and upgraded to an FE2 in 1987.
I used to think that those were great cameras and I would
never need anything better. In 1989, I somewhat reluctantly
bought my first AF camera, the N8008 and subsequently an F4s.
There really is a lot more I can do with AF. For example,
there are quite a few bird-in-flight pictures I would never
be able to take without AF. A few months ago, I used my FE2
again in a company party and was surprised how "primitive"
that camera is.

Just my opinion, and this might have something to do with
the type of photography I like: landscape and wildlife.
-- 
-- Shun Cheung,    electronic: shun.cheung@att.com    voice: (908) 615-5135
     HR 1A-304, AT&T Bell Labs, 480 Red Hill Road, Middletown, NJ, 07748 USA
From: subra@kaki.uucp (S Subramaniam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Choosing a tele zoom
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:43:27 GMT
Organization: TANDEM Computers, Inc (CS2)

Hello all,

I am planning to buy a telephoto, 70-210 or 80-200 or 100-300 range 
for the Nikon FM2. I am aware that recently the same discussion was 
started by Vasco Pedro. Apart from the Sigma and the Vivitar Ser I, 
I would like to add Tamron, Tokina and Nikon in my options. From 
the April '92 issue of Popular Photography, I have already noted 
down the size, weight, filter size, price etc. My priorities for 
the lens are faster aperture, one touch zoom, low dispersion glass, 
tripod mount (if the lens is heavy) and price. I am interested to 
know if any of you have faced any problem with the tele zooms of 
the above manufacturers, like vignetting, size and weight, filter 
size, lens hood and other mechanical problems.

From my survey from the PopPhoto magazine, I have observed that the 
ED lenses are very expensive. Is it really worth to go for such ED 
lenses? I am ruling out all lenses which are slower than f/4.0. 
However, the lens can be either manual focus or autofocus. If the
lens in the higher price range is exceptionally better than the 
other models, I do not mind spending the extra dollars. I am also
considering the used ones, especially for the ED category.

As this is my first posting in any newsgroup, sorry for any
mistakes. The replies can be in either mail or postings. If I 
receive enough number of mails, I'll post a summary.

Thanks in advance,
Subra
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dtj@teak.cray.com (Dean Johnson)
Subject: Re: Wildflowers (summary)
Originator: dtj@teak
Reply-To: dtj@teak.cray.com (Dean Johnson)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:29:51 CDT


In article <12430018@hpmwnpd2.HP.COM>, allana@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Allan Armstrong) writes:
|> With all the discussion about wildflowers, I thought I should offer the
|> one hint that I haven't seen discussed here:
|> 
|> Carry a spray mister with you. Some of the best photographs are those of
|> flowers with lots of morning dew. Usually, though, the weather doesn't
|> cooperate, but you can bring your own spray mister. I wish, though, that
|> someone made a really tiny one as the one I have carries much more water
|> than you'd ever need for photography.
|> 

Try a perfume atomizer. Get the little travel/purse type. You can buy them 
(sans perfume) at most department stores that have the huge perfume department. 
I purchased one for my cologne and it cost about $10. Be prepared, however, to 
get gagged by the plethora of aromatics being discharged around you.

	-Dean
-- 
	-Dean Johnson
	 Software Berserker/Rabid-Prototyping Specialist/CyberHippie
	 Tools, Libraries, and Commands Group
	 Cray Research Inc.	Eagan, MN	(612) 683-5880
Newsgroups: rec.photo