HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Silver Recovery
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 17:48:38 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:


>I recently purchased a Berg Silver-Saver kit, which is for recovery of
>silver from used fixer and blix solutions.  When I got home and opened
>the package, I was disappointed to find that it is necessary to get the
>fixer/blix solution to pH 5.5 before adding the solution from the kit.
>For this, pH paper, 28% acetic acid and Sodium Carbonate, which are not
>included in the kit, are required.  As it happens, I have the chemicals,
>but not the pH paper, and I don't know where to get pH paper locally.

pH paper is normally found at the drug store.  I've noticed it on the
shelves of several.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Xref: sparky rec.photo:15077 alt.cd-rom:2828 gnu.misc.discuss:2793 misc.int-property:886
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Photo-CD - THE FACTS
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:06:38 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

hasker@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Hasker) writes:

[me]
>>As an enthusiastic photographer and user who is waiting on this product 
>>with bated breath, I say "who cares?"

>Look at what happened with Nintendo.  Nintendo successfully sued people
>who decoded the cartridge interface so they could make and sell their own
>Nintendo-compatible games.  The result is that the price of Nintendo
>games is _much_ higher than it would be if there was legal competition.
>Do you really want to go to Kodak for _every_ image manipulation program?

Nintendo was an issue of patented hardware, as I recall.

After reading all the pinheads flaming away at Kodak in the typical
Usenet don't-have-a-clue style, I did something really unusual.  I called
Kodak.  This is something anyone capable of pounding out 11 digits on
a phone can do.

Here are the FACTS:

A $39 program for the Mac or PC called Access Software is available from 
Kodak.  This software allows one to pull off an image and >>NOTE THIS,
PINHEADS<< save the image in any of the common PC/MAC formats.  Formats
I specifically asked about, TIFF, GIF, TARGA and PICT are supported.
The lady's comment was "we support all popular formats."

My next question was "how about Unix support".  Answer:  "Soon".

Next question: "Suppose I can't wait and want to write my own Unix code?"
Answer: "The developer's kit is available for $695 and >>NOTE THIS, 
PINHEADS<< includes source code as well as object for PC/MAC.

Next question: "How do I get it?  Do I need any contract?"
Answer: "Call the 800 number and charge it to your favorite credit card."
	No mention anywhere of any secrecy or loyalty agreement.

Next question: "What is the resolution of the highest resolution image?"
Answer: "3072 X 2048", 24 bit color.  Yeehaaa!!!!!

Final question: "Give me some phone numbers."

800 242 2424
	To order software, ex 53
	Electronic Imaging group, ex 77

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mkuhn@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Martin W Kuhn)
Subject: Re: Need a new camera - what to get?
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:08:03 GMT

In article <2049@deadmin.ucsd.edu> napier@cs.ucsd.edu (Jim Napier) writes:
>
>I have a Canon FTB with a 55mm FD lens that I bought in '76 and used for a
>number of years before putting it on the shelf. I tried using it recently
>and discovered that the lens no longer works (a repairman said the lubricants
>in the leaf shutter had dried up so that the mechanism no longer stops down
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^-- I assume you/he meant "diaphram" (sp?)
 
>properly). However, I'm torn on whether to get the FTB cleaned up and buy a
>newer multipurpose lens for it or replace it. I've been away from the camera
If you're happy with the FTb, I'd say "Keep it!"  Personally, I have an
old TL  (little brother to the FT) which I use as a spare body.  (My regular
body is an A-1) The FTb is a well made all-mechanical camera, and was once
Canon's "semi-pro" camera.  It is certainly worth using.  Granted, more modern
features such as autoexposure and autofocus are nice; in fact, once you use
them you may wonder how you ever got along without them, however, your
FTb is just as capable a picture-taker as the newer lines.  Frankly, I don't
know that much about current SLRs;  the only autofocus SLR I've ever used 
was an EOS 650, and that was only a couple of times)  If you're interested
in a modern autofocus SLR, there are many others on the net that can help
you.  Keep in mind that the used price of an FTb is around $75- $100, so
that should give you some idea of what you can sell/trade your current camera
for if you get a new one.  

In conclusion, what I want to say is, if you want to get a new camera, that
is fine, but don't let people try to talk you out of keeping your FTb just 
for the sake of buying a new one!   (note that my A-1 is not much newer
than your FTb-- it was originally bought in '78 or '79...)  If you are 
happy with your FTb, keep it!  (Besides which, it will cost a lot less to
buy a new lens than to get a whole new camera outfit...)

Well, that's my opinion, anyway...

                    -- Marty
 


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Canon F-1 Questions
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:25:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.020339.8808@ultb.isc.rit.edu> fjcppr@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>If you want a perfect lightweight manual focus professional camera to 
>replace your F1, get an Olympus OM-4t. There is no better camera. It has
>the simplest user interface, and the best spot metering system on the 
>market. The only weakness is that it isn't autofocus.
>
>Frank Cost

Here we go again. Sorry to differ.  I don't think there is a *perfect* camera,
lightweight or not.  What your personal choice of camera to recommend is just
that, personal.  From my experience and experiences of my photo buddies, two
cameras come to mind.  The Canon T90 and the Nikon 8008s.  Yes, the Nikon F4S
is great, but for the money, the 8008s is a better buy.  Both cameras, T90 & 8008s, 
in my opinion, embody the best in non-AF and AF cameras.  The OM-4T was the
first (I believe) camera to have spot metering, but to say it has the best spot
metering is arguable.  
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
From: antonsen@hpcndaw.CND.HP.COM (Tim Antonsen)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:01:28 GMT
Subject: 4x5 T-Max: your experiences
Organization: HP Network and System Management Division
Newsgroups: rec.photo

Hello all--

I'm an experienced but (alas) part-time photographer who uses a 4x5, mainly
for B&W field work, but am tinkering with $0.25 studio (I'm cheap about lights) 
and architectural work. I also like to do long exposures (well into reciprocity
failure). I consider craftsmanship necessary to my artistic goals, and use
the Zone System to control my materials.

But, I'm way behind the times, practically neolithic in my materials. Never-
theless, I'm going to try some of this new-fangled T-Max stuff soon. I'm
interested in the comments of you who've used 4x5 T-Max 400 and 100:

  * What are the relative merits/demerits of 100 vs. 400 (4x5 remember)?
       Corollary: How would you compare T-Max to older films like Tri-X Pro?

  * What are the relative merits/demerits of different developers with T-Max?
       Corollary: I hear T-Max is a b*tch to process. Why? How to overcome?
                  I am using single-sheet tubes to process my film these days.
   
  * How is T-Max with regard to reciprocity failure?

  * Any other useful comments will be of interest.

Surely someone has kept a copy of some exhaustive discussions on this topic.
Go ahead and mail it to me.

And thanks in advance ...

--Tim
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Flash recommendations wanted 
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 08:46:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.141327.29929@alf.uib.no>, edmtl@fiol.uib.no (Thor-Lee Legvold) writes:
...
> I won't be buying the SCA adapter at once, I want to try a bit without 
> it first and see how things go 'the old fashioned way' (i.e. calculating
> it by hand and measuring the light ;-), so I'm not sure if I should
> go with Metz or not.  It's nice to be able to upgrade later.  I 
> was thinking that the 45 is too strong, but it can be used at 1/2 and
> 1/4 strength, and the 32 with stave is almost the same price (here anyway)
> Maybe I should buy one mail order from the US???
> 

Well I was about to recomend the CT-60, or a 202 or 404... You can always shoot
the 202 on 1/2 power, but its hard to set '2x' power if you need it...
The price should be right on an old 202, and it has a *LIGHT* head. If it has
had a lot of use, you may need to spring for a new tube.

~Paul
From: d10ckt@ilx129 (Yizraeli Yehuda)
Subject: try
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 16:48:39 GMT
Organization: Intel
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
From: vaidya@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Rajesh S. Vaidya)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Query about EOS Rebel...
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:31:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

I want to take some night time shots with my EOS..with exposure times
running into several minutes. How can I do this without keeping the
shutter manually depressed all the time ? With my old SLR I could
conveniently use the cable release..but there is no such feature on the 
 Rebel.
      Any response will be highly appreciated

				Rajesh
				(vaidya@ecn.purdue.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: frank@truevision.com (Frank Loffel)
Subject: Use Velvia at 32 or 40? (Was: Re: Fuji Slide Film or Pushing Kodachr)
Organization: Truevision Inc., Indianapolis, IN
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:20:12 GMT

robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>stability than Ektachrome. I also use Fujichrome Velvia (at EI 32 or 40)
>when I want extra color (NOT for images of people).

In what cases would you use Velvia at ISO 40? At ISO 32?

Any specific rules or just gut feeling?
And do you shoot for projection or for reproduction?


-- 
-- Frank Loffel, Truevision, Inc., uunet!epicb!frank frank@truevision.com :-) --
From: kbb0@harvey.gte.com (Kevin Burke)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: selenium wash, "clearing the whites"
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:10:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.180514.5028@odin.corp.sgi.com>, donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis) writes:
> 
> [Reference to 1950 edition of A. Adams _The_Print_]

> I think we've cleared this up.  I don't believe the current series
> talks about this sort of thing, leading me to believe that Adams
> changed his approach.
> 
> The definition of "modern papers" has changed quite a bit since 1950.  :)
> That could be why this is no longer the recommended technique.
> 

From the 1983 copyright of Adams' _The_Print_:

page 137 - 

	"For example, we may have specular high values that fall just short
	of pure white, or other important light areas that are not "crisp"
	enough when we examine the dry print.  Bleaching can be employed
	when we would like such areas to be slightly lighter."

page 139 - 

	" "Local" reduction can be very useful for "clearing" the high
	values in a single area, but you must be careful to control the
	spreading of the reducer solution."

Overall, Adams seemed to not favor this technique alot because of
difficulty with control and predictability. At least that was my
interpretation from reading this edition of the book.

Regards, Kevin
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photo-CD - THE FACTS
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:57:04 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida


axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman) writes:
: >3.  Camera lenses, especially at this point in history, are subject
: >    to incredible improvement.  A theoretically-perfect f/2 lens would
: >    be diffraction limited to over 500 l/mm, for example.  A small
: >    breakthrough in manufacturing technology, combined with good design,
: >    could make resolution like this quite possible in a few years.  At
: >    least, over 100 l/mm could become common!
: 
: Now you're getting me excited.  Do you really think this will happen in just 
: a few years?  Is lens technology changing that quickly?

Think about the molded aspherical plastic lenses in Kodak disposable
cameras.  If you have never tried one of these, I urge you to do so,
just to see how good the images are -- you have to be careful to hold
the camera steady, or else most of the unsharpness is your fault!
(Of course, also have the processing done at a good lab! ;-)

That's with just one lens element - no correction for chromatic aberration,
distortion, etc.  However, most of the problem with getting really good
optics is in the difficulty of figuring a lens to an arbitrary aspherical
shape, especially a paraboloid or hyperboloid.  Coming up with lenses
capable of resolving hundreds of lines per millimeter is a relatively
simple design problem; what makes lens design hard is mostly the problem
of needing to get good images from lenses having only spherical elements!
As far as really high quality goes, it's somewhat akin to turning a sow's
ear into a silk purse.

What's keeping us all from owning lenses with over 100 l/mm resolution is
mostly the problem of finding a way to manufacture high-quality aspherical
elements economically and in large numbers.  Word on the net is that both
Nikon and Canon are hard at work on this problem, and that the lenses on
the market containing aspherical elements are a first step in this direction.

There are problems beyond spherical aberration, but they are not unsolvable.
For example, the new low-dispersion, high refractive index optical glasses
help to get around the problem of chromatic aberration.

: For all you disclaimers, Jay, you've done a good job of addressing the 
: key points.  Are you looking for a job?  We can't compete with that Tampa
: weather, but Rochester has it's charm.
: -- 
: Mike Axman  
: CD-Imaging Advanced Development
: Eastman Kodak Company
: axman@acadia.kodak.com

I could always use some extra income.  What did you have in mind?

Jay Ts
uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
(813) 979-9169
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
From: richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:06:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.171818.19021@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky) writes:
>In article <l9okqpINNnc6@almaak.usc.edu> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes regarding Photo CD:
>>Kodak wants to tie up the file formats under lock and key.  You can't
>>write a program to open their files.  You can't even write a program
>>which generates their files.  Don't expect to ever see interfaces
>>between Photo CD and pbm or TeX.  If you write a neat program which
>>does XXX to a file in Kodak format, you can't give that program to
>>anyone else.
>
>actually, there's no need to worry.  regardless of kodak's position,
>there will be vendors who are more than willing to provide open
>interfaces to the formats.  it could well be that the kodak
>people have not recognized that regardless of how strong a
>position they might hold in the market today, all it takes
>is for some nickel-and-dime competitor to offer an open system.
>all of a sudden they're months or years behind in getting
>their method accepted as a standard.    better yet, instead of
>a nickel-and-dime competitor, how about fuji?   kodak would be
>out of the running overnight.  

Kodak could do what Adobe did so successfully.  The Type 1 font format
was a trade secret for years, until the first competitor arrived.
Suddenly Adobe published the spec.
-- 
Richard Krehbiel                                 richk@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
From: hargitai@acf3.nyu.edu (hargitai)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Contax D (old) info needed.
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:37:43 GMT
Organization: New York University

Somebody sent me an old Contax D last week.
It is in clean working condition, a very nice piece,
with a 58/2 Biotar lens. 

Not long ago somebody posted using one. Any negative experience
with it?

joseph
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nodal point on lens.
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:11:24 GMT
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA


In article <1992Aug27.195109.27731@news.columbia.edu>,
fag2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Farul A Ghazali) writes:
|> 
|> How do I find the nodal point on a lens?

Look on his tummy.

If it's not there...

There are two nodes of interest -- one in the front, and one in the
back.  It seems to me that if you pivot the lens around the node, the
image won't move.  Utilizing this fact would mean making a little
device to help hold everything in the right place while you tinker with
it.  (Two blocks of wood with a pivot between them, so that you can
slide the lens back and forth on the center of the top one.  Or
something like that.)

If you trust the focal length, you can focus something at infinity and
then measure forward to find the rear node, and turn the lens around
and do the same thing to find the front.  Certainly the focal length
should be pretty close to the marked value, though probably not exact.
Whether you need more accuracy depends on what you're trying to do.

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Photography Contests 
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:51:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.205011.29698@indetech.com> alix@indetech.com (Alexandria North) writes:
>
>Some friends of mine have suggested I start entering my photos in 
>photography contests. I've also found this suggestions in some 
>photography books I've read recently, as a way of learning to shoot 
>to a "spec" and for gaining minor recognition.
>
>Here's the Q: How do you find out about these contests, other than 
>by accidentally stumbling on them? Where are they usually advertised?
>Other than seeing one contest in a Ritz Camera ad and a Kodak contest 
>in Photographic, I haven't really seen any advertised in the past 
>six months. Where should I be looking?
>
I have only just started entering photo contests, almost a
year now.  Not all photo contests award prize money. Some
just exhibit your photo's for a short lenght of time and
you receive a ribbon/certificate or a small gift.  I live
in San Ramon, CA and the San Ramon Community Center had one
last year that I entered.  I entered the Alameda County Fair
recently also.  Just about all county fairs have photo
contest.  It seems just about all the photo magazines have
monthly/quarterly/ or yearly contests.  Then there is the
national and worldwide ones.  I haven't had the chance to
submit to the big ones yet.  It always seems to me that it
is just too much trouble to submit to them.  My local photo
store seems to have flyers periodically announcing photo
contests in the general area.

I also see announcements in the newspapers. Check out
the local sections, etc.
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs)
Subject: Re: Fuji Slide Film or Pushing Kodachrome
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:03:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.205958.29549@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com> kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden) writes:
>I've been pretty happy with Kodachrome 25 and 64 for quite a while.  However I
>want to shoot some faster slide film and I don't like Ektachrome (spelling?)
>and also disliked the results I have gotten with Kodachrome 200.
>
>I would be willing to try Fuji slide film, but I know some of Fuji's films have
>"better than real life" colors.  So what I would like to know is which Fuji
>slide films offer more realistic colors and are they available in ISO 200 or
>400?
>
The "better than real life" reputation probably refers to Fujichrome Velvia
(RVP).  I have only limited experience with this.  After shooting hundreds of
rolls of Fujichrome 100 (RDP), I could heartily recommend it.  Its colors are
very neutral (and maybe a tiny bit warm).  I also like Ektachrome 100N (EPN)
(not Ektachrome 100 Plus (EPP)).  I DO NOT like Ektachrome 200 (ED or EPD);
it is too bluish.  If you are after a faster film, you could try Fujichrome
400 (RHP).  Also, Fujichrome 100 would push well to 200.  You should consider
buying Fujichrome 100 (RDP) in bulk rolls; B&H sells them for $70, which works
out to $3.50/36-exp roll.  
>The other thing that I might want to try is exposing Kodachrome 64 at a higher
>speed and then getting it push (or is it pull) processed.  Has anyone tried
>this combination?
>
Haven't tried Kodachrome of any kind since I swore off it about 8 years ago.
But getting any slide film push processed is an expensive hassle.  If you
process your own E-6 slides (which I heartily recommend), then pushing is no
big deal.

Ron Speirs, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikon 35-105 AF lens
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:06:59
Organization: CSUA/UCB
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: wjh@cbnewsl.cb.att.com's message of 4 Sep 92 02:10:25 GMT

I used to have the 35-105 AIS and now have the old-style AF.  They are
similar in feel though the AF is two-touch.  I remember the AIS would
stay mostly in focus as I zoomed, but if I wanted to focus critically
it would usually need a slight adjustment.  At smaller apertures this
didn't matter much.

What I don't like about either 35-105 is the minimum close focus
distance (outside macro mode) of 5 feet or so is a pain for intimate
portraits etc.  I don't know what to do.  The 28-70 is a very nice,
compact lens that doesn't have this problem, but I feel that 70mm
isn't long enough.  Tamron also has an ultra-compact 35-90/4.5-5.6
and I feel that I could live with the slow speed for this type of
shooting (with flash), but the optics of the Tamron are supposed to
not be so great.

Both 35-105 Nikkors are quite nice lenses modulo the above.