HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: terst1+@pitt.edu (Timothy E Rapp)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Info on Better wide angle
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:58:29 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <11SEP92092817@tiamat.hacks.arizona.edu> paulf@tiamat.hacks.arizona.edu writes:
>In article <vemuri.716151305@godzilla>, vemuri@informix.com (Sudhakar Vemuri) writes...
>>Dear friends,
>> 
>>I want to buy a SLR camera with Autofocus option. I would like to try Canon 
>>EOS rebel or its minolta counterpart.
>
>The general consensus on the net seems to be that the bottom-end AF SLRs
>(Canon Rebel, Nikon 4004/f401, Minolta 3xi, etc) arn't much more than 
>point-and-shoot cameras with interchangeable lenses. If you really want
>AF, go with the next higher level (Nikon 6006/f601, Canon Elan, Minolta 5xi).
>

Bleeeeepppp!  I wouldn't not recommend the Canon Rebel because of the auto-
focus; but because of the high level of plastic used in the construction.

I own the Rebel, and the auto-focus has always worked fast and has given the
correct focus.  In fact, it has always worked wonderfully.  However, it is
slow with only 1 frame per second in continuous frame advance.  And doesn't
offer automatic bracketing, among other missing features.  But, it is the
cheapest AF SLR body on the market (well, was when I bought it - the 3xi
might have that distinction now!).

A quiet SLR would be desirable for nature photography.  The newer Rebel II
and of course the Elan are designed to give quiet operation (the Elan more
so).

If money is a major issue, buy a cheaper SLR with better lenses.  You can
always add another body (with the same lens mount) later.

-Tim

>-----
>paulf@hacks.arizona.edu
>paulf%hacks.decnet@telcom.arizona.edu
>To sit in solitude, to think in solitude with only the music of the stream and
>the cedar to break the flow of silence, here lies the value of wilderness.
>						-- John Muir
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Slave Flash Photography?
Summary: Experiences?
Keywords: Slave Flash Optical Diffuser Wide
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:01:31 GMT

I'm interested in getting an optically-trigged slave flash in the hopes
of eliminating the nasty behind-the-subject shadow associated with direct
flash (in those situations where bounce flash won't work).  Would I just
place the optically-trigged slave behind the subject, facing the wall?

I was thinking of getting one of those "Morris Mini Wide" slaves, but I
hear that it doesn't have variable output.  How would I balance the light
against my main flash?

Any other recommendations for slave flashes?  Any experiences to relate?
Speed of setup?  Final results?  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: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: t-Max Films
Date: 8 Sep 92 09:46:03 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Sep8.053812.18068@citec.oz.au> sgccpgs@citec.oz.au (Paul Salanitri) writes:
>Sil.Horwitz@p8.f18.n363.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>:  VA->  Has anyone tried using D-76,1-1 with the T-Max films?  My 
>:  VA->  wife hand processes it regularly and the results are quite 
>:  VA->  good.
>: 
>: I have been using D-76, 1:1, for decades, and it's the best developer around
>: EXCEPT for T-Max. Never could get it to work right. I shifted over to T-Max
>: developer and immediately my T-Max negs met specs. To ease the pain of cost,
>: the T-Max developer has a very long shelf life! How are you using D-76 to get 
>: the good results with T-Max films? <<sil>>
>: 
>: --- msged 1.99S ZTC
>I have been using TMAX developer on TMAX 100 and was not impressed by the grain
>I then did one with D-76 straight and got better grain (fluke perhaps, but I
>shall see)
>
>Also, what is the best developer to use to get the FINEST grain possible on 
>TMAX-100,  I don't mind exposing at 25 even if I have to.

If you don't mind exposing at 25 ASA, there's certainly no reason to use TMAX
100!  Agfapan 25 is a lot friendlier than TMAX 100, and ought to have finer
grain.  Ilford PANF in the right developer might be another good choice, but
grain-wise it's only a little better than TMX, in my experience, and I had
a nasty experience with Microdol once where some PANF in udol 1:3 came out
far grainer than TMX in Tmax developer.  But if you don't mind the extended
red sensitivity and having to use odd developing procedure, the stuff for you
is definitely Tech Pan.  Why use TMX at 25ASA when you could just as well use
tech pan?  The grain's so fine that the resolving power of the lens is much
more of an issue.


-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon	 tls@panix.COM

"Better be careful there.  John might decide to start taking legal action
against people who refuse to buy stuff from him."  --Kevin McBride
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jeffs@.SanDiego.NCR.COM ()
Subject: Re: Mirror Lockup
Reply-To: jeffs@spike.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jeff Schwartz)
Organization: San Diego Porting Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:01:20 GMT

When you trip the shutter of a SLR camera, two things happen.  The mirror moves
out of the lens-to-film path and the shutter opens/closes.  The mirror hitting
its stop shakes the camera.  Obviously it doesn't shake the camera very much,
but if you are looking for "razor sharp" photos, any little bit counts.

My OM-4 doesn't have this feature but I have a pretty good work around.  I set
the shutter timer.  When I trip the shutter, the mirror is raised immediately
and the shutter opens 10 seconds later.  I hope 10 seconds is sufficient time
for the vibrations  to subside.

JeffS
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pratt@utkvx3.utk.edu (Mark Pratt)
Subject: EMERGENCY help needed before 5 pm 9-7-92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:27:00 GMT

BOOMSDAY '92 in Knoxville, Tennessee is tomorrow, and I need some advice on
shooting the fireworks...

I have Ecktar 100 or Fuji 100 film, whichever is recommended, (I would think
the Ecktar)

What kinds of aperature settings would be appropriate,
and what kind of shutter times are we talking about.

I have been advised by someone to use 10-15 second shutter times, but I dont
now what aperature??

Any help would be appreciated: I am using a Canon EOS Rebel with tripod, Sigma
75-210 lens, fireworks to be shot against black sky.

Thanks, Mark Pratt
Pratt@utkvx.utk.ed
From: shizgal@vax2.concordia.ca (PETER SHIZGAL)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: CANON off camera flash cord. Operation with 630. Any info?
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:46:00 GMT
Organization: Concordia University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep5.184455.25324@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes...
>I have the Canon off camera flash cord which preserves all 430 EZ flash
>functions when used with all EOS cameras EXCEPT the 630 and RT (and maybe
>some other now defunct models). I seem to remember someone trying out this
>cord with the 630 to see what, if any, off camera flash modes would operate.
>Does anyone have a copy of this posting? Maybe the original poster is still
>around and has more info. I am hoping that at least the fully manual flash
>mode might still be OK. I got the cord for use with a 10s, but I'm hoping
>I might be able to get SOME modes to work with the 630.
> 
>Does anyone know WHY the 630 and RT don't work with this cord? ...

I'm not sure why the cord doesn't work with the 630 and the RT, but I recall
some speculation in previous postings that the problem is a mismatch between
the cable properties of the cord and the communications bandwidth.

A one-piece cord that DOES work with the 630 is manufactured by

		David S.H. Leung
                33 Goodmayes Road
                Ilford, Essex IG3 9UN
                England

                Tel. 81 590 3268
                     81 599 6657
                FAX: 81 590 0293

==============================================================================
| Peter Shizgal			       | CSBN, Concordia University          |
| Shizgal@CSBN1.Concordia.CA           | Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8    |
==============================================================================
From: kanner@Apple.COM (Herbert Kanner)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: ILFORD XP2
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:07:09 GMT
Organization: Development Systems Group, Apple Computer

In article <n097ct@ofa123.fidonet.org> Jim.Chapman@f706.n278.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>I'm about to delve into Ilford XP2--this is the weird B&W film that uses
>color dyes, and requires C41 processing.  Does anybody have any
>experience, wisdom, folklore about this stuff?

Yes. Don't repeat absolutely don't underexpose. Ignore Ilford's claims
that you can rate it anywhere between 100 and 1600. For really
beautiful print quality, rate it at 200. In a pinch, rate it at 400.
Go no higher.

The reason is that in the thin places on the negatives, the separation
of the dye clumps, which overlap in the more exposed places, gives the
appearance of an unpleasant sort of grain. If you expose correctly,
the thin places will be the very dark places on the print, in which
you won't notice this "grain." On the other hand, if the entire
negative is thin......
-- 
Herb Kanner
Apple Computer, Inc.
{idi,nsc}!apple!kanner
kanner@apple.com
From: mprats@ocf.berkeley.edu (Mario Prats)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Laser copy transfer
Date: 15 Sep 1992 22:11:45 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

Has anyone seen the Sept. 1992 issue of Camera & Darkroom?
They publish the winners from their "Alternative Processes Competition"
and there is an interesting technique called "laser copy transfer":

"a photographic print is laser-copied, and then transferred to the
final support paper by means of a lacquer solution"

Has anybody tried this? A friend of mine told me he used to do
something similar in elementary school by applying charcoal
fixative to a picture from a magazine, placing it face down on
paper and rubbing with a pencil until the image was transferred.
Is anybody familiar with these techniques?
Any idea as to what type of lacquer solution should be used?

I also think it is interesting that image transferring with
polaroid film has become so popular lately. Maybe we are moving
away from "photorealism" (term used by Kodak when they
introduced Ektar 25) to more painterly, imperfect images???
From: savoia@sw.stratus.com (Rick Savoia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikon Photo School: is it good?
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:23:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <30562@goofy.Apple.COM>, parsons1@applelink.apple.COM (Don Parsons) writes:
> 
> This certainly turned into a productive discussion. I have the same question
> about the Nikon School because I just registered for the March 93 San Francisco
> session. Equipment bashing does not help anyone determine if the Nikon School
> is worth the $75 and an entire weekend. If anyone has been through it, some of
> us would greatly appreciate any comments.


I've never been through it, but I thought you'd want to 
know its $75 and a day, I believe, not  a weekend.  I just
signed up for the one in Boston.


Rick
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sala8864@hgc.edu (gustavo salas)
Subject: Re: another all mechnical camera
Organization: The Hartford Graduate Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:33:43 GMT

In article <10SEP199214453382@venus.tamu.edu> s0l3906@venus.tamu.edu (LIN, SHYH-HORNG) writes:
>
>
>A few months ago some netters talked about all mechnical
>cameras. Only two are mentioned : Pentex K-1000 and Nikon
>FM2. I recently got a brochure of Yachica FX3 super 2000.
>Looking at its spec. ,it seems to me it is also a all 
>mechnical camera : mechnical shutter, mechnical timer. You 
>can use it without batteries.( Of course, meter's h
>gone)
>From the specification, it has a shutter speed up to 1/2000
>and a self timer and with a split-image cross-microprism
>view finder, but its price is only $119( at Adomara ).
>Compared to Pentex k-1000, it has higher shutter speed. K-1000
>doesn't have a selftimer. And if you want a split-image view
>finder, you have to pay $20-$30 more to get a SE model , which
>costs about $135.
>For a beginner who want a mechnical camera, it seems to me that
>Yachica FX3 super 2000 is a better buy than Pente x. But, on the
>other hand the Pentex body is probably more rugged.
>
>Any comments are welcomed.
>
>Jerry


Yes, I do agree with you(that FX3 is better buy). In addition to its
higher shutter speed, zeiss lenses can be used with the camera.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Morris Slaves and NiCads?
Summary: Are they compatible?
Keywords: Morris optical slave flash nicad batteries
Date: 13 Sep 92 04:21:14 GMT

I recently bought a Morris "Mini Wide" slave flash and some NiCd AAA's
to power it.  However, when I tried NiCads (after charging them, of
course), the flash wouldn't charge.  Indeed, one of the cells became
too hot to handle and is probably damaged.  The flash seems to work
fine with Alkaline batteries.

When I hooked the Morris up to the small power supply I have in my
basement, the power supply gave a "short circuit" indication at the
beginning of each flash recharge cycle, but otherwise worked fine.

Has anyone else experienced this, or do I just have a dud?  Any
recommendations on something that would give me the same features (120
degree coverage, optically triggered, small)?

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______________________|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: andpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Inrared Photog + Spider Webs
Reply-To: andpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:01:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.205354.2061@craycos.com>, sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.174351.26951@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> rdb1@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ronald.j.deblock..jr) writes:
>>I believe that the flower patterns in spider webs show up at ultraviolet
>>and not infrared.  This is from a documentary  I saw on PBS a few months ago.
>>
>>Makes sense, if you think about it.  Bees and other insects can see uv.
>>
>>The show also explained that spiders will change the patterns every few days.
>>...........Now, where do I buy ultraviolet film?
>
>Film is easy. Lenses are a different matter...
>Photographic emulsions are quite sensitive to UV, unfortunately most
>optical glass is opaque through a lot of the UV range.  Quartz lenses
>(like the UV-Sonnar) are *extremely* expensive ($10K - $15K, the last time I
>looked).

I wonder if a pinhole could be used as an image forming device.... it's
resolution may not be good enough however. On the other hand, the resolution of
pinhole image forming systems should be better than when pinholes are used for
"light" imaging.   Maybe zone-plates could also be used.  Also, Simple lenses 
as built into old box cameras should probably be adequate to fairly short 
wavelengths.

The most appropriate film to use would be B&W because UV is not a region of the
spectrum that has a "color" assigned to it since we can't see it.  Color film
exposed to UV would simply look very blue or the UV blocking filter sometimes
coated on the top layer may block the UV well enough to simply insignificant
levels.


andy davidhazy
From: my00@gte.com (Michael Yuen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Anyone own a Zone VI field camera?
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:56:34 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: GTE Labs

In article <RIVIERES.92Sep14103530@texas.parc.xerox.com>,
rivieres@parc.xerox.com (Jim des Rivieres) wrote:
> 
> 
> philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun) writes:
> 
> > P.S.  I assume all of you have seen Fuji's ad for Readyload 4x5
> > Velvia... has anyone managed to find any?
> 
> Yes. I bought some locally about a month ago.  I was a bit surprised to find
> that Fuji "Quickload" is quite different internally from Kodak Readiload
> (although Quickload works just fine in a Kodak Readiload holder).  Whereas a
> Kodak Readyload contain two sheets of film attached at the top to a full
> length opaque plastic backing, Quickload contains a single piece of film with
> plastic extension tabs attached at the top and bottom.  The Quickload is
> somewhat clumsier to extract the sheet of film from, especially the first time
> you try it (hint: the tabs twist off).
> 
> ---jim

Fuji has been making readyload sheet films for Polaroid for years. I wonder
if Quickload is any different from that of Polaroid.

-Mike

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Michael Yuen                   Tel - (617)466-2919
GTE Labs                          Internet - my00@gte.com
40 Sylvan Road                 FAX - (617)466-2130
Waltham, MA 02254
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rivieres@parc.xerox.com (Jim des Rivieres)
Subject: Re: Kodak Slide Stack Loader: good?
Reply-To: desrivieres@parc.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA
Date: 2 Sep 92 09:51:54


frank@truevision.com (Frank Loffel) writes:

> Kodak is offering an acessory stack loader for their Ektagraphic projectors.
> Does this gadget work well?
> Does it work with the Carousel projectors as well?

I use a Kodak stack loader with an old Carousel projector.  It works just fine.
The big advantages are compactness and the ability to quickly load a fresh
stack of 36 (or so) slides.  One small limitation: you can't run a stack loader
in reverse.  And it doesn't like thick glass slide mounts.

On the other hand, the clips that Kodak sells for use with the stack loader
are pricey and unnecessary.


--
Jim des Rivieres
PHONE: (415) 812-4718  FAX: (415) 812-4334
EMAIL: desrivieres@parc.xerox.com
MAIL: Xerox PARC, 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA
From: paul@eye.com (Paul B. Booth)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Two 120 film in One Reel
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 13:42:21 GMT
Keywords: Development
Organization: 3D/EYE, Inc.  Ithaca, NY

In article <1992Sep8.232835.13373@sj.nec.com> hisashi@neclpd.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Hisashi Naganuma) writes:
>
>This is how I am trying:
>
> 1. Put 1st roll into the reel entirely.
> 2. Put only the head of 2nd roll into the reel.
> 3. Connect the tail of the first roll and head of the next with adhesive
>    tape.  The tape should be water resistant.
> 4. Put rest of the portion of second roll into the reel.
>
Sounds like a good approach.  An alternative method is to unwind both rolls
at the same time and place them back-to-back, so that the emulsion-side of each
roll faces out (we really only care about getting the emulsion side wet,
right?).  Then just wind them both onto the reel at the same time.  I've used
this method successfully with both 35 and 120 film, but only on stainless
reels (sorry Patterson, _real_ men only use stainless ;-) ).  I can't think
of a reason why it shouldn't work on plastic, though.

-- 
Paul B. Booth  (paul@eye.com)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3D/EYE, Inc., 2359 N. Triphammer Rd., Ithaca, NY  14850    voice: (607)257-1381
                                                             fax: (607)257-7335
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 4x5 T-Max: your experiences
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:50:27 GMT
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1860052@hpcndaw.CND.HP.COM>, antonsen@hpcndaw.CND.HP.COM (Tim Antonsen) writes:

|>I consider craftsmanship necessary to my artistic goals, and use
|>the Zone System to control my materials.
Well, to be true to the Zone system, you'd need to calibrate your personal film
speed based on you camera/developer/processing technique.  Everything I say
can only be taken as a suggestions

|>  * 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?
If you're looking at long exposures, TMX (100) ends up being faster than TMY
(400) because it's reciprocity line is much straighter.  Both films (suffer?)
offer a wider exposure range than the older films.  This means you may have
negs that have a range of detail/density that you will not be able to fit on
paper (without LOTS of work).  It's so good at this, that some people have
started metering for the highlights and depending on TMX to hold up the shadow
detail.  Both films offer much finer grain than older films, but there are a
dedicated group of photographers who prefer the narrower range and grain
characteristics of Tri X.

I'd start my testing of TMX at 50 or 64 and bracket a stop and a half
in both directions.

|>  * 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.

TMAX films are very sensitive to time/temperature variation in development. 
If you're careful/precise/repeatable with your processing, it's not a
problem.  I've used Kodak TMAX developer (not my favorite, too much silver
solvent), Agfa Rodinal 1:25 and 1:50 (a bit more grain, but "snappier"), and
Formualry BW-2  in various mix/dilution ratios (a glycin based, divided
developer with slightly finer grain than the Rodinal).  I'm sticking with the
later two for now for my 4x5 stuff.  Rumor has it that the TMAX developer was
formulated for the TMY and TMZ (3200) films to make grain less obvious.  I like
to use it for roll film portraits where a softer image is nicer and the image
will be enlarged more.  It's too soft for my landscapes.

There is nothing magic about TMAX RS developer and TMAX sheet films.  Kodak
just assumes that you'll be doing tank processing with sheets and will be using
a replenishment system.  You can use regular TMAX developer, you'll just have
to "cook" your own numbers.

Also beware that TMAX films require about 50% more fix time and exhaust fixers
more quickly.  There is a "pink" dye that should come out in the fixer or wash. 
If you notice ANY pink in the dry neg, you need to fix longer.

jimf
From: spermand@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (David Sperman)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:43:33 GMT
Subject: Info wanted: Canon T90
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: rec.photo

I am looking to purchase a 35mm SLR camera in the next month or so.  I've
been following this newsgroup, reading various photo mags, talking to
dealers and friends, and reading Canon product literature for the last few
months and am leaning towards Canon equipment.

I don't have any money invested in manual focus equipment but am leaning
towards the T90 nonetheless because of the 'perceived' superior quality/
selection of FD optics (over EF).  Besides, I have yet to see many USM
lenses in the used section of the local camera stores...

I am interested in the T90 primarily because of the built-in metering 
patterns (don't like the idea of changing focusing screens on the F1 to
check exposures) but have been unable to track-down any reviews/evaluations
of the body (with the exception of Consumer Reports articles).

I'd like to hear from people that have first hand experience with the T90,
could point me to informative reviews, or simply want to tell me how stupid
I am to go with an old technology.

Please send me email at the addresses below and I will post a summary if
there is sufficient interest.  Thanks in advance.

David Sperman
spermand@hpcc01.corp.hp.com
spermand@sierranv.corp.hp.com