HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cray@cray.kharkov.ua (Valery V. Cray)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: ProfiSECRETs or "It is energy that is the main"
Date: 22 Dec 92 10:59:00 GMT
Reply-To: cray@cray.kharkov.ua
Organization: PARALLAX CENTER Inc.


                   IT IS ENERGY THAT IS THE MAIN

    It three years ago when I put an end to take up social photography and
I began with making photograph of young "ladies". As to our work and selection
of models I try to go out from standart commercial character ("face").
    During act photography the main author problem is not making up poses -
they are the result of all evolution itself - but to "stoke"(warm up) model as
one can call this.
    As a rule girl comes "gold" and there should be some excitation , creative
itch in order there exchange of energy between her and photographer went through.
Quite often I take several photographic cameras - among them one uncharget -
and begin to click and "bring in" a model: Well! Well! She becomes excited and
begin to show something unusual and then I seize the other photographic cameras
and real work begins.
    It is from U-Shu that I took the idea of vital centre. All time I talk to
girls that their smile , arm movement and everything else begins with abdomen.
Energy comes from photographer the normal picture will be.
    Three parts the creative work consist of are as follows: intellect, sense
and sex. All other is nonsense.(The formulation  of English artists Gilbert and
George is used. See exhibition catalogue of 1990.) It doesn't matter for a mo-
del where and under what light to be photograph- she doesn't see herself from
outside - the specific surrounding that all she needs.
    It is very important for girls to be set free and that is we begin with.
It is neccesary for a model to fell herself very comfortly at this state ,
being satisfied of her to be admired. To be a photomodel is natural and more-
over the fair state .
    It is East wisdom that says: the aim is not so important as the way itself.
One can say that everything is well if the way passed by you and "girls" is
for "kife", for you .

Valery V.Cray , photographer & director "PARALLAX CENTER".
UKRAINE, 310100 Kharkov
P.O.Box 2864 .
Phone 0572 984-333.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 01:21:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.191209.7652@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>In <1992Dec24.164916.15387@cello.hpl.hp.com> jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
>To have focused, your subject must have been in the middle of the
>viewfinder.  So, it makes sense to take the exposure off the middle of
>your viewfinder because the subject is there.
>
>Am I missing something?

    I think anyone who compare different metering system in different
cameras are missing somehting.  What make you think the "subject",
under any of the mentioned metering system, is always middle gray?
While you are at it, seems to me the trend in new gee-whiz cameras
today is toward more and more metering modes.  Before long, there
will be a metering mode for every possible situation, all one has to
do is figure out which mode is the right one.  I think it's much easier
to learn one metering mode, the zone system.  I wouldn't want to be the
one who has to figure out what the 5 zones what not metering mode is
actually doing in order to dial in the correct exposure compensation.

-Anthony
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bukti@wam.umd.edu (Andrew F. Maddox)
Subject: Low Budget Medium Format
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 02:24:21 GMT

Happy Holidays, all!

I have a line on picking up a Kiev 88 setup for a pretty low price (250-300 $US
for the body, 1 120 back, 80mm lens, filters & case), and I have read reviews
that suggest this to be a decent camera, which can use old Zeiss lenses :-)!

I'd like more info on it before I buy the thing, though - does anyone have any
experience shooting with this machine?  How reliable is it?  How accurate is the
TTL prism meter (I may be able to get one of those, too)?  How good are the
USSR/Ukraine-made lenses?

Post it here, or EMail me directly at bukti@wam.umd.edu or am96@umail.umd.edu 
(I cruise lots of BBSs).

Thanks in advance, Andy.  
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: michael9@nadine.cs.mun.ca (Michael Sullivan)
Subject: Ordering film
Keywords: cheap
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 15:21:40 GMT

  	Does anyone have the address of a place where I can order film at a
slightly more reasonable price then what it is sold for here?  
Everyone wants about $7-$8 for a roll of Kodacrome, about $6 for a roll
Ektar 25, and the cheapest I've seen Kodak Gold 100 is $8 for a box of 3.
All these are rolls of 24, BTW.

  Would there be any problem with shipping film, especially seeing that
it has to cross a border.  What are the chances that it will be exposed
to heat or x-rays?


-- 
|uunet!garfield!michael9|'"Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing,"|
|michael9@odie.cs.mun.ca| says God.  "But you have given us proof," says      |
|POB 756,St.John's,Nfld.| man, "Therefore you do not exist. QED." "Oh, my,"   |
|A1S 1G8                | says God, and disappears in a puff of logic.'       |
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: The "perfect" automated 35mm camera? (was: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?)
Date: 25 Dec 92 05:51:45 GMT

In <Bzssw7.Krv@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:

>In article <1992Dec24.222016.13992@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>>[much neat stuff about what a perfect camera should have deleted]
>>Did I forget anything? :-)

>   Yeah, how about full front and back standard till and shift for that
>undistorted building shot.  And a much bigger negative like 4x5.
>So what I want is all the things you mentioned, in a Sinar P-3 or
>something like that, for less then $1000.

It would probably be easier to have an optional bellows hanging off the
lens mount that would take larger-format lenses.  (Actually someone
tried this with a Mamiya 645 with reasonable success I think...)
That way, the camera doesn't get too big and only has all that floppy
stuff when you really need it.  :-)

Come to think of it, I don't want a camera that takes 4x5 negatives.
(Can you get 4x5 in roll form?  Makes it much easier to develop a motor
drive! :-)  I'd want a camera that would give me the quality of 4x5
on a 35mm frame!  (How's this... a camera with a "Tardis" that distors
space to fit a 4x5 negative in the space of 35mm!  Yeah! :-)

>-Anthony

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: hwang@agsm.ucla.edu (Hongbo Wang)
Subject: Query: Maxxum's New Generation !
Keywords: Minolta
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:53:43 PST

Hi, Folks -

      I am a fan of Minolta MAXXUM cameras, and a owner of 7000 and
7000i. I have been thinking of buying a 7xi for quite long. My concern
is that should I buy it now or wait for new model to come up. It seems
to me that 7xi has reached the level that very little room is left for
improvement in terms of features and functionalities. Does anybody can
give me some ideas as:

   1) What the fourth generation of MAXXUM (7000 -> 7000i -> 7xi -> ?)
will possibly like?
   2) Approximately what time it will be available in the market?

      I know it may be not possible to get official information about
this, so anything you heard, guess will be fine.

Thank you.

Hongbo

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hongbo Wang                               |     ----\\\----///----
Anderson Graduate School of Management,   |     E-mail: hwang@agsm.ucla.edu
University of California, Los Angeles.    |     Phone:  (310) 398-8660
From: ben_wen@athena.mit.edu (Benson Wen)
Subject: Re: EOS 630 (650 and RT) Interchangable screens - any experience?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<1992Dec18.225754.4985@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:06:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.225754.4985@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:

   In <1992Dec18.213135.18699@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:

[Stuff about installing screens, and metering considerations deleted.]

   The bi-split is the most useful for manual focusing, since it's easy to
   tell much adjustment is required, and in which direction.  The quad-
   split seems to be better for plain "focus confirmation", but worse for
   focus assist.  I haven't figured out the double crosshair yet.  (Help!)

[More deleted.]

I have the cross-split (or quad-split, as you call it.)  It works
well.  I'm going to try the microprism next.  On my old FTb, the
microprism worked better than any split focusing aid I've ever used.
I went so far as to toss the split rangefinder on my F1 for the
microprism. 

Is the "double crosshair" you have just an X in the middle of a clear
circle?  I don't get what you mean by the "double" part.

Anyways, you use the crosshair on a clear background to focus on the
aerial image using parallax.  Large formatters use this same technique
for focusing.  I think for 35mm, this is really only useful for macro
photography. 

Basically you focus by shifting your eye/head back and forth over the
clear spot.  If the image is correctly focused, then the image will
not shift relative the crosshair.  If it isn't in focus then, the
aerial image is either in front of or behind the crosshair and they
will move relative each other.

-Ben
--

|| Benson Wen
|| ben_wen@athena.mit.edu
|| queeph@hing.lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm)
Subject: Re: TMAX versus PLUS-X
Organization: Ocean Sciences Centre
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:49:39 GMT

	Well, GRAIN-X, ooops, I mean Plus-X is a tad grainy even
	at 8x10 level prints, whereas I can normally achieve relatively
	little grain with TMAX 100 on 11x14 prints.
	
-- 
  Craig Hamm, Memorial University,|   
  Newfoundland, Ocean Acoustics__/   
  DoD #1500,      ____________/          
  1981 Maxim 650 /            
  _______________| 

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: EOS lens list
Reply-To: jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 04:05:56 GMT

In article <5360837@hplsla.hp.com> barryg@hplsla.hp.com (Barry Gunn) writes:
>
>I do use the close focus distance information when choosing one lens over
>another. And as I stated in another post, the close focus distance of the
>28-105 is listed as 2.3ft in my Canon brochure(sp?). Could someone who
>owns one or has seen one, please confirm this? If the close focus is 
>really .5 meters, I'd be alot more exited about it.
>
>     /|\ barryg@lsid.hp.com

2.3 ft is closer to 0.7 meters. 

Since 28-80's (non-L) closest focusing distance in macro range is 0.5 meters.
I would not be surprised if 28-105 can do it around 0.7 meters.

Jason Chen

Newsgroups: rec.photo,ba.general,sgi.general
From: chucko@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry)
Subject: Re: Where to process my color negative film
Organization: Recom Technologies, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:58:29 GMT

In article <PCHAN.92Dec31101907@snowy.csd.sgi.com> pchan@snowy.csd.sgi.com (Pamela Chan) writes:
>I don't know of any good shops nearby, but I do know of a place to
>avoid: "Film to Frame" located at San Antonio and El Camino Real.

They have moved, but I forget where.  The one time I dealt with them I
got reasonable service at prices that weren't outrageous.

You said you had problems with slides done there.  Film to Frame was a
one-hour print house, and probably had to send out to get slides done.
Most one-hour places don't want to know about slides.  Unfortunately,
neither does Kodalux (formerly Kodak's processing arm). 

I have had excellent results with Color Plus, on Old Middlefield in
Mountain View.  They are a pro lab and their prices reflect the pro
orientation.  But they provide excellent service.

 -- Chuck Fry  Chucko@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov
From: al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro Nikkor lens & F3HP
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:09:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Dec21.190903.2835
Distribution: rec
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

In article <lakhindr.724711956@bowmore.NSD.3Com.COM> lakhindr@ESD.3Com.COM (Lakhinder Walia) writes:
>This lens has large movements. And that changes the effective F stop
>value as you go from Infinity to very close-distance.
>This change shows up in 8008s' window.
>
>I was wondering how does it show up in F3, if this lens is connected to it.
>I dont think F3 "talks" to its lens like 8008s ...! I dont know of any
>other way of finding about the effective value of F stop except asking the
>lens itself.. 

You don't need to have the F3HP "know" the real effective F stop, since
the internal meter is allready "seeing" the reduced light.  The camera
will compensate by using a longer exposure.  I quote from Shipman's book:

"Usually you will be using the camera's built-in exposure meter anyway,
so it measures the effect of the close up accessory and you set exposure
accordingly."

The lens may be set at F4, and the light might be suitable for F4 at a 1/125th,
but if you extend a macro lens enough the camera meter might read a 1/60th..


-- 
Alan L. Peterman                                 (503)-684-1984 hm & work
                       al@qiclab.scn.rain.com
It's odd how as I get older, the days are longer, but the years are shorter!
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Re: 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro Nikkor lens & F3HP  : SUMMARY
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:30:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <121000005@hpldsla.sid.hp.com> tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich) writes:
>
>The only thing that the lens tells the F3 is how far down from wide
>open the aperture will be during the exposure.  You'd have to use the
>math to find the effective aperture.

At least with the 60mm MicroNikkor, the focal length changes as it
focuses, and this change is not specified, so you can't use math to
figure the effective aperture.  With the 60mm at 1:1 I think you need
to open up 1.5 stops (maybe it is 1+2/3, I don't have the table with
me), but the formula effective_f_stop = (1+M) * infinity_f_stop would
indicate 2 full f-stops.

And, as others point out, this whole compensating thing is only a
problem if you are using external metering, sunny-16, etc.

  -- David Jacobson
From: peterd@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Peter Davidoff)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:04:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Zone VI 4x5 view comments ?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Greeley, CO
Newsgroups: rec.photo



Just a note... most of the photo literature I've got from the 
19th century use the 5x4, 10x8, 8.5x6.5 format.  Can't quite
pinpoint when the change occured.

Regarding gearing on the field view cameras:  my old Kodak
8x10 has geared tilt on the back (fixed front standard), as
does my 11x14 century (circa late 1800's).  At least on these,
the gearing is nice, but quite restriciting compared to the
ungeared view systems I've got.

Regards,

  Peter Davidoff
Xref: sparky rec.photo:22403 misc.forsale:33978
From: jrm@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Jeff Mason)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale
Subject: FOR SALE: Polaroid Automatic 230 Land Camera and Accessories
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:50:37 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

I am selling off some of my camera equipment, and I came across this instant
camera set-up that I had bought about a year ago because I wanted to dabble
in instant protography.

For Sale:

- Polaroid Automatic 230 Land Camera
	Perfect working condition.  This is not one of those cheap Instamatic 
	point and shoot cameras.  This is a very sturdy, quality camera from 
	the late 60s or early 70s, with all the original documentation and
	accessories (strap/cold-clip #193)
- Polaroid Portrait Kit #581
	This allows for very near focus for portrait type settings.  It 
	consists of three parts, a portrait lens, a portrait attachment for
	the viewfinder, and a diffuser for the #268 flashgun shield.  With this
	you can focus on subjects much nearer than the normal closest focusing
	distance.  A picture taken from 19 inches, the closest focusing
	distance, will include an area of approximately 11 x 14.5 inches.  In
	a picture taken from the farthest focusing distance, 42 inches., the 
	area will be approximately 28 x 37 inches.
- Polaroid Close-Up Kit #583
	This kit consists of three parts; a close-up lens, a close-up 
	attachment for the viewfinder, and a diffuser for the #268 flashgun
	shield.  With the close-up lens and attachment on the camera, you can
	focus on subjects much nearer than the normal closest focusing 
	distance.  You can come as close as 9 to 15 inches to get a big image
	of objects like flowers, coins, body parts, etc...     
- Polaroid Flash Model 268
	Comes with blue diffuser/flash-shield.
- Box of Sylvania Blue Dot Clear M2 Flashbulbs
	For use with the Flash gun.
- Box of Polaroid 107C 3000 speed Instant film
	This stuff is still on the market, but I will throw this in to get
	you started.  I might have a box of color film somewhere too.

All of the above for $100.00 plus shipping or best offer.

Jeff Mason

	
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Pro-quality Instant Cameras
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 01:14:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.201756.29848@spdc.ti.com> yen@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Tony Yen) writes:

   The camera did not look like anything I had seen before (for example, 
   Mamiya with a Polaroid back). My question is: what camera might that be
   and are there pro-quality instant cameras?

It was probably a Polaroid 600SE, which is actually a Mamiya press
camera modified to expose the whole frame with Polaroid pack film.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Mail Order; Camridge; AAA; Better Business Bureau
Distribution: na
Date: 22 Dec 92 06:20:27 GMT

In <Bzn79s.90K@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (TJ Doran) writes:

>Regarding mail order camera operations, one I saw recently in a magazine
>advertised Minolta (Dynax) bodies.

>Anybody know what the '(Dynax)' part means?

European designation for "Maxxum".

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: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Fungus on lens
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 11:28:04 GMT

In article <1he35pINNii5@crcnis1.unl.edu>, vporguen@unlinfo.unl.edu (victor porguen) writes:
> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Dec22.095521.17861@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> appy@churchill.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Pratul.Sharma) writes:
> 
>>>do it myself. Also how do I avoid fungus killing other lenses.
> 
Your NOT going to like this... get all your camera bags, lens cases and other
fabric/leather etc stuff and turn it black, as in ash black. Burn it, and the
spores from the fungi in the lens.

>>Fungus grows in damp air.  Store your lenses and equipment in dryness.

YES

> That's generally good advice. However, in the long run, even mild 
> humidity is enough to allow fungus to grow on polished glass surfaces.
> The main problem is that the fungus does corrode the surface, and 
> "cleaning" as such is not really possible. You have to re-polish the 
> surface to eliminate all traces of the growth, because the fungus 
> etches the glass surface as it grows on it.
...
> Fungus doesn't "move about" - it's all around us, in the air, in the 
> form of spores. It's all over the world, more in some areas than in 
> others, but it doesn't have to "move" or "jump" from lens to lens...
> <grin>.
> 
>>If you're serious about your stuff, get it all cleaned (even if it
>>costs money) and then keep it clean.  You may decide that it's not
>>worth the money; that's your decision.
> 
> I wish him luck. If the growth is not too deep, a cleaning might 
> eliminate much of the markings, but not all. Some marks will remain
> on the glass surfaces unless they are re-polished - which is usually
> not practical.
> 

Only a few fungi are at home on glass. Trouble is, once they settle in, the
spores get into all the rest of your gear.

~Paul

From: brunob@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Bruno Bienenfeld)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:33:22 GMT
Subject: Re: What is IMHO?
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

In My Humble Opinion

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Anyone use a Daylab?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Distribution: rec
Date: 27 Dec 92 02:12:49

Anyone out there using a Daylab?  What model?  How do you like it?
Now that Agfachrome Speed isn't made any more, what print materials
do you use and is the Daylab of much help handling the processing
chemistry?  Overall, how much hassle is the experience compared
with conventional darkroom printing (either black-and-white or RA4)?
Thanks.
From: mssmith@afterlife.ncsc.mil (M. Scott Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Photographing people; need permission?
Date: 2 Jan 93 22:47:31 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond


Hi..  I'm new to the world of photography but I'm very excited about it.

I was practicing taking pictures the other day at a park, and there was
a lady with two kids feeding ducks that I thought would make a great picture,
but I didn't take it because I began to wonder if I would be breaking any
laws of etiquette (or plain old laws) by not getting permission from her.

A little silly in that case, I suppose, but are there any "rules" that should
be followed when taking pictures of total strangers?

I assume this would probably depend on what was being done with the photograph.
My intuition tells me that you can take pictures of whatever you want, or
whoever you want, as long as it's in a public place, without obtaining
permission.

But is this true?  What if I'm taking a picture of a bunch of people walking
down a street in a big city?  Or what if I make a specific person the
unknowing subject of a photograph?

I guess these are probably stupid questions, and I guess they're fueled by
my habit of always being "polite".  It would make me nervous to take a picture
of a total stranger, especially if this was considered an inpolite (or illegal)
thing to do..

Any remarks from the pros on this topic would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Scott
  (mssmith@afterlife.ncsc.mil)