HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cjk4800@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Ludwig van Halen Rocks RIoT)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: How dangerous are developer chemicals?
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:48:11 GMT
Reply-To: cjk4800@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

In article <PHR.93Jan26184056@napa.telebit.com>, phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>I don't know that I'm the most (or least) careful darkroom worker in
>the world, but my hands would almost always smell like developer
>after I developed film.  After a while I wised up and started wearing
>rubber gloves---not latex, surgical, or anything but the cheap
>dishpan kind that go up to your elbow.  Works like a charm.


I would be more inclined to believe that your hands had a kinda vinagery smell
to them, right?  That would be from the acetic acid in the stop bath.  Acetic
acid is the same stuff as vinegar.

It least I think that reeks more than anything else in the darkroom...

Chris, Lab Intern from HELL

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Christopher J Kohanek          \\         CJK4800@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu 	      +
+Photo Systems Management        \\  164 R. Quigley Dr; Scottsville NY 14546  +
+Rochester Institute of Technology\\% Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY 14650-1202 +
+        Disclaimer:  If my employers have opinions, it's news to me          +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: helen@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Helen X. Qian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Marketing Polaroid Transfer Prints
Date: 28 Jan 1993 17:53:07 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: earth.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1k722hINNarj@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> monson@ece.orst.edu writes:
>
>  After learning about these sales, I got to thinking that there may
>  actually be an opportunity to make money selling "art" photographs.
>  Does anyone else know of instances where T-roids are selling?
>  Where?  What kinds of subject matter, and what prices?


I have seen some 3x4 transfers in a photo gallery priced in the neighborhood
of $200.  Don't know how well it's selling. I've also seen people selling 
transfers at arts and craft shows for $50 3x4 matted.  Again, don't know 
how well it's selling.  I sold some of my prints among friends for $30 3x4 
matted.  It's probably low.  But then, I was only doing it among friends.

The prints I've seen in the gallery and at the shows are all unmanipulated.
I use color pencil and pastel to add colors on mine.

Helen

PS Has anyone tried the new Polacolor 100 yet?  The color is much more
brilliant than the old 669, especially the red.


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu)
Subject: Re: EF 75-300 (was Re: Elan Telephoto Zoom Lenses)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<1993Jan20.173344.7992@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>
	<1993Jan21.180920.29010@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:30:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.180920.29010@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:

>  Let me add some numbers. Comparing here the Canon EF75-300, The Sigma 75-300,
>  the Sigma 75-300 APO and the Tamron 90-300 (all from Pop Photog tests).

[lots of data deleted]

>  I could go on, but I think the point should have been made by now. The next
>  time someone dismisses the Canon EF75-300 zoom as a poor performer ask them
>  what the basis is for their comments. In many ways it outperforms the
>  Sigma 75-300 (which is regarded as an OK lens), the Sigma 75-300 APO (which
>  is regarded as a good lens) and the Tamron 90-300 (which I have heard no
>  critical comments about). I did not include the Minolta 100-300(i?) zoom
>  which was tested in the same Pop Photog issue as the Canon lens because
   it did so poorly, especially at 300mm.

Do you have numbers for the EF 100-300 USM and the EF 70-210 USM to
compare with the numbers you have?  I believe the basis for "knocking"
the EF 75-300 was its performance relative to these alternatives.
I don't think anyone seriously considered the Sigma or Tamron lenses
as viable alternatives.

--
Thomas Wu                                                  "Raise shields."
Internet:  tjwu@athena.mit.edu                             "What shields?"
From: sylve_ge@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Gerald E Sylvester)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Ansel Adams Prints
Date: 26 Jan 1993 23:36:12 -0500
Organization: Homewood Academic Computing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu


A few months ago, someone posted a message containing the phone
number and address of the company (?) that sells "authentic"
Ansel Adams prints.  Can someone re-post this address and phone 
number and approximate price of 8x10's and 11x14's (or whatever
the standard sizes are).  Thanks in advance.....

        _   /|       The Gerald Sylvester
        \'o.O'       The Johns Hopkins University
        =(___)=      BITNET: SYLVE_GE@JHUNIX.BITNET
           U         INTERNET: SYLVE_GE@JHUNIX.HCF.JHU.EDU
From: smangan@src.honeywell.com (Stefanos Manganaris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Storing/Filing Negatives
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:00:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: src.1993Jan27.030018.1706
Distribution: rec
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center


Anyone with suggestions on how to neatly organize and store negative
strips?  I really hate these sleeves one gets at the Photo Labs.  Are
there any products out there made specifically for archiving negatives?

Thanks for any info,

Stef.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: Elan Telephoto Zoom Lenses
Reply-To: jchen@ctt.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:15:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.162402.17902@spider.co.uk>, mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren) writes:
|> In article <19JAN199315165289@romeo.caltech.edu> dcl@romeo.caltech.edu (Darek Lis) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan20.034757.1@cc.curtin.edu.au>, zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au writes...
|> >> 
|> >>Forget the 75-300. Get the 70-210, 100-300, 100-300L, 80-200L or 35-350L.
|> >                                                                  ^^^^^^^
|> >Has anybody seen one of these in a store yet? How much does it cost?
|> >
|> 
|> I haven't seen one for sale, but I did see it in the "New Products" page
|> of a British photo mag.  They said it would be about 1400 pounds sterling,
|> which means probably around US $2000 or so.
|> 
$1799 to be exact from one of the mail order houses.

Jason
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: cat(mirror) lens questions
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:33:10 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <1993Jan18.005342.649@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu>,
krschimm@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu (Karl Schimmel) wrote:
> I'm looking at a Samyang 500mm/f8.0 Cat(mirror) lens, has anyone hear of this
> company or had any experience with them?

Karl-

Since no one has commented all week, I thought I'd take a crack at it!

I have 3 "Cat" lenses.  One has a Pentax mount, with specs similar to the
Samyang you described.  I think it is a Soligor, but don't remember.

Another is a Celestron "C-90" 1000mm f/11, which uses the "T-mount" system
to attach to a camera body.

The third is a Minolta 500mm f/8 Auto Focus.  This is reputed to be the
only AF Cat lens in production.

These lenses all have some common faults:

     They don't focus very close.

     They are very difficult to focus manually, since the split-image
focusing
     aid turns half-black for such small apertures.

     There is light fall-off at the edges or a hot spot in the center,
     depending on how you look at it!

Of the three, the Minolta AF lens is head and shoulders above the others. 
It is a real pleasure to use.  Like the Soligor, it is compact and
lightweight, but is much easier to use because of the AF capability. 
Although it has some light fall-off, it isn't objectionable.

In your case, the Samyang may be good for you if the price is right. 
However, only you can decide if you can focus it easily enough.  Try it out
in the store first.

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
From: tim@nijinsky.ipac.caltech.edu (Tim Conrow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Avoid FOTO CELL!  Avoid FOTO CELL!  Avoid FOTO CELL!
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:37:12
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: nijinsky.ipac.caltech.edu
In-reply-to: yuanj@ucbeh.san.uc.edu's message of 25 Jan 93 16:04:22 EST

In article <1993Jan25.160423.2565@ucbeh.san.uc.edu> yuanj@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:

   Re: Avoid FOTO CELL!  Avoid FOTO CELL!  Avoid FOTO CELL!

   Do not order any thing from FOTO CELL of NYC!

   ... FOTO CELL sucks!  Very Badly! ...

   Remember, do not order from FOTO CELL!



So, do you think I should order from FOTO CELL or not? Try to be clear.

-- Tim
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: MAIL ORDERING (was Re: Avoid FOTO CELL!)
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:38:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1k2kn3INNesk@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, schen@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes:
> I agree. I have had a similar experience with FOTO CELL about two years
> ago. I ordered five items from them at the time totaled about $150. They
> charged to my Discover card in about one week. They started shipping the 
> first two items after I waited about three weeks. The third one after I 
> waited about 6 weeks. The last two items never showed up. I called them
> about every three weeks. The answer was always "it is on back order", 
> "it will be here any time", "we will ship it tomorrow", then after 
> several weeks, it would be "on back order".
> I wrote to Popular Photography twice with no response at all. I called my
> Discover card, they said they were going to check on it. Finally, after
> 6 months, (YES, half an year) I asked the student attorney(they are real
> lawyers working for students at UT) to write a letter to demand the money
> back. They almost immediately credited the money back into my credit card
> account. It was not my first time order to them, but it was the last and
> also I always tell my friends to avoid them.
> 
> FOTO CELL really sucks! They also rarely sell items at advertised prices. 
> 
> schen@microbot.me.utexas.edu

Re: the use of credit cards to pay for mail order. Whenever I order stuff
I use my Mastercard (AT&T Universal card if it makes a difference). The
store I order from can bill me for whatever they like, but I only pay
for what arrives. If I have not received an item by the billing date on
my card I simply call up the credit card toll free number and tell them
why I won't be paying the full amount billed. They take note of my
complaint and do not charge me interest on the disputed amount. When the
stuff finally arrives I pay the bill. Is the Discover card different?
If not, why pay for stuff you have not received, just because you have
been billed for it? If you don't pay, the company you order from has a
better reason to get the stuff to you fast. The only time I would pay
up front is if that had been agreed on at the time of sale (e.g. deposit
on a special order item), or it was a company I really trusted, or the
amount involved was not worth fussing over.


===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Fabrice Jaubert <fjaubert@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: comments on Canon 28-105USM?
Organization: Computer Graphics Laboratory, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:38:43 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

Hello.

I've been looking for a new lense for my EOS, and after changing my mind
several times (75-300, then 100-300 USM, then 28-80 USM), I'm now (almost)
sure I'll get the 28-105 USM.

Any comments on this lens? I've seen the 28-80 USM and 100-300 USM in stores,
but never this one. Is this one of the "plastic lens mount ring" models?
Does it have a distance scale, or is it more like the 75-300?

BTW, my reasons for preferring the 28-105 over the 28-80 are: more range
(fits in better with the 100-300 I'll eventually get) and slightly better
max. aperture.

Thanks for your help...
	...Fabrice

-- 

Fabrice Jaubert                                        Computer Graphics Lab
fjaubert@watcgl.waterloo.edu                        U. of  Waterloo, Ontario
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Clark Photo Developing
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:55:45 GMT


A friend gave me a mailer for Clark Photo, saying
that he was very happy with their work.

Anyone have any comments?
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.wanted
From: reinhard@stsci.edu
Subject: Wanted: Focus Screen for Olympus 0M-1
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:01:24 GMT



I am looking for focusing screens for an Olympus 0M-1 camera.

The type needed is for astrophotography.  I think the type
is numbered "1-8".

Thanks.

Kent Reinhard
Space Telescope Science Institute
Baltimore,  Md.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: d88micla@odalix.ida.liu.se (Michael Larsson)
Subject: Re: Nikon Equivalent of Pentax K1000?
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:32:40 GMT

sun@cco.caltech.edu (Neal K. Chaudhary) writes:


>Hi
>Being new to photography, I was wondering
>whether Nikon makes a camera similar to
>the Pentax K1000.  
>I was also wondering what people think in
>general of a K1000 as a camera to learn on.
>I like the idea that its all manual, so
>you have to figure things out yourself.
>Does it alteast have a light meter inside
>the viewfinder?

>Thanks!
>Suneal Chaudhary

Nikon makes a camera with about the same features as the K1000, it's
called FM-2 over here, I think it has the same name in the US. The FM-2
is a bit more rugged and has more attachable features, but they are
generally the same type of camera. 

Personally, I think both cameras are quite ideal for a beginner, to learn
photgraphy basics I believe nothing beats a completely manual camera. At 
Fotohoegskolan, i.e. the best recognized photographic education we have in 
Sweden, I know FM-2 is a very popular starter's equipment.

Don't worry - they both have a light meter in the viewfinder. Integral 
metering.

Good luck!

                   Michael Larsson, Linkoeping univ. Sweden
                           d88micla@und.ida.liu.se

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lancelot@spock.uucp (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Ilford DELTA 100: Info wanted
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:55:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.165030.24733@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> madler@vssad.enet.dec.com (Michael C. Adler) writes:
>
>I asked about Ilford Delta 100 at a local camera store the other day
>and was told that they had received one shipment of the film but it was
>recalled by Ilford due to excessive variability of the film's speed because
>of manufacturing problems.

Yowsers!  I'll look out for that.  I've got 5 rolls I bought at B&H just before
Xmas, but I've been too busy with large format to work much in 35mm since then.
I'll have to do some speed tests, though all my rolls are from of course the
same emulsion batch.  Details at 11.

-- 
*******************************************************************************
*Thor Simon             * Okay, just a little pin-prick...There'll be no more-*
*tls@panix.COM          * Aieeeeaaaugh!-but you may feel a little _sick_.     *
*tls@spock.UUCP         *   ---Pink Floyd                                     *
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: danisch@ira.uka.de (Hadmut Danisch)
Subject: Is there a new Minolta Camera?
Reply-To: danisch@ira.uka.de
Organization: Univ. Karlsruhe
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:20:36 GMT

Hi,

here in germany the price for the Minolta
Dynax/Maxxum 9xi was constant DM 1995,- for long time.
Now it is going down fast, i have seen DM 1600,- and
DM 1400,- .

Could this be an early sign for a new Minolta (higher
than 9xi) ?


Hadmut
From: wagner@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photographing computer screen and monitor
Date: 22 Jan 93 10:07:49 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <1jn1nfINN247@larry.cs.ubc.ca>, samuel@cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Samuel) writes:
> fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie) writes:
> 
>>In article <20JAN93.06523255@sklib.usask.ca>, siteman@sklib.usask.ca wrote:
>>> I've been photographing scanned-in images at 1/8 sec.  in a totally dark room.
>>> I was able to get the effect I wanted, more or less,
>>> but the instructor suggested that the monitor should be more obvious in the
>>> photo.
> 
>>Sarah-
> 
>>First, you don't have to go as slow as 1/8 second unless there is some
>>other factor such as film speed or f/stop to consider.  A standard
>>television screen is completely "repainted" every 1/30 second.  Higher
> 
>  The problem with faster exposures is that you often catch the screen in
> mid-scan.  a longer exposure limits the visible effects of this 'scan 
> aliasing' (for lack of a better term).
> 
>>Second, it seems that your instructor is suggesting that you use some form
>>of ambient illumination to make the monitor visible.  You can make meter
>>readings of the screen, and decide on some acceptable amount of ambient
>>light.  A small lamp can be moved around the room until the desirable level
> 
> Another possibility is a flash exposure (it will probably have to be off
> the camera to avoide having the reflection show on the screen). This also
> allows you to have people, or other moving objects in the picture.
> 
> 
>>An alternative might be to take separate exposures of the screen and the
>>monitor with full ambient illumination, and combine them later.  This could
>>be done in the darkroom, or it could be done by scanning separate scenes,
>>and combining them in a computer.  It all depends on your resources!
> 
> A simple double-exposure is another excelent option.
> -- 
> -- 
> Stephen Samuel 		(604)822-9248		samuel@cs.ubc.ca
> The first prerequisite to winning is playing the game.
The last time I had to do something similar I did a time exposure in a darkened
room of the screen with the monitor on, reached over and turned the monitor off
and flashed the room lights on and off.  It took a bit of experimentation.  I
used a black card in front of the lense to control the exposure time on the 
screen (same as photographing multiple fireworks bursts).

-- 
73, Tom
================================================================================
Tom Wagner, Audio Visual Technician.  Malaspina College Nanaimo British Columbia
(604) 753-3245, Local 2226  Fax (604) 755-8742  Callsign VE7GDA

I do not recyle.....   I keep everything!       (All standard disclaimers apply)
================================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: What does ED glass really buy you?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:32:18 GMT

In article <1jmhnoINNqbr@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
> My understanding is that the ultra-expensive telephoto and
> zoom lenses featuring ED-type elements allows colors in
> whatever wavelength to focus on a single plane.  My question
> is, if you take a non-ED lens of the same focal length, and
> stop it down several stops, would not the inherent depth of
> focus at the film plane have much the same effect, esp. with
> a subject focussed at infinity?  In other words, would the
> ED type lenses really come into their own when used at near
> fully open apertures... which kind of implies that the photographer
> wanted to either hand hold, or for some other reason wanted to
> maximize shutter speed (sports, nature)?  What it comes down to,
> for tripod-mounted landscape use, with small apertures, is there
> any advantage to ED?
> 

Some aberations are improved by stoping down a lens, but some are not.
Stoping down won't help chromatic aberation or distortion (pincushion
or barrel effects). ED and fluorite lenses do eliminate chromatic
aberation, but their use is only really required for telephoto lenses,
wher chromatic aberation can be very strong. Most landscape work is
done with wide angle lenses (though certainly not all), which really
don't need ED glass (but it certainly doesn't hurt). If you want to do
landscape work with a stopped down telephoto, you still need ED glass.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: pjs@gvgdsd.GVG.TEK.COM (Peter J. Stonard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Tele or Zoom (Nikon 8008s)?
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:44:13 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gvgdsd.gvg.tek.com
Originator: pjs@gvgdsd

The 28 - 70 mm zoom lens that I have for a Nikon 8008s Christmas
gift (to myself!) needs a companion.

I have a vague idea of what I would like and I haven't seen
an ideal candidate in the mail order listings, so here is an
opportunity for Nikon fans to do some day dreamin' 

- 100mm < focal length < 300mm
- Use all or most of the 8008s features (ie AF)
- Reasonably fast, equal or better than f/3.5

Intended uses:
- Outdoor scenery, carrying on hikes
- Motorsports
- Close up or macro photography of aquaria

Undecided, but asking for advice:
- Nikon or third party?
- Tele or Zoom?
- Tele converter plus existing or new lens?
- Used or brand new?
- More than one lens? ie two lens of different character, which when
  combined serve a wide range. (Have used a 135mm before and liked it).
- Cost is an object :*)  About equal to the body cost ($550) or am I
  dreaming?

Thanks you for your help.


++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++
Peter J. Stonard        +                                /^\  /^\
Grass Valley Group      +                       /^\     /   \/
Grass Valley, CA. 95945 +                     /     \ /    /  
pjs@gvgspd.gvg.tek.com  +     Fish keeper in the Sierra Foothills
++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++
If it looks like; sounds like; quacks like; an Opinion. It's mine.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Accuracy of 630 partial metering
Reply-To: jchen@bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 23:02:42 GMT

I always had problems with the partial metering on the 630. If I relied
on the partial metering when shooting a back lit subject, the subject
usually turned out underexposed.

I have suspected the printing process, until today when I compare the 630 with
an Elan.

To my surprise, 630's partial metering is almost one stop higher than the 
measurement of Elan. I vaguely recall that Elan's partial metering also 
tends to underexpose in Pop. photography's lab report, 630's partial metering
must be way off.

If you have a 630, I would like to find out your experience with the use of
its partial metering.

Jason Chen
Newsgroups: rec.photo