HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor Legvold)
Subject: Re: Hasselblad TCC equipment???
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:31:25 GMT

exjtmm@tts.lth.se (Thommy M. Malmstr|m) writes:
: >>>>> "ML" == Marcus Lundahl <f92mlu@efd.lth.se> writes:
: 
: ML> A TCC in Sweden costs about 55000 Swedish kronor.
: 
: Where have you seen a TCC for that? The lowest price i've seen was
: just above 70000 SEK.

Here in Norway the same model goes for between 60 and 65000 Norwegian
crowns.  That's about the same as 55000...

: 
: ML> That includes Body, 80TCC Lens, One back (sometimes you get
: ML> an extra back as an bonus, and that's worth alot!).
: ML> The exchange rate is 1:7.47 (Dollar:Swedish kronor)
: 

Exchange from NOK/Dollar = 7:1
I thought the Swedish crown was stronger than the Norwegian???
Of course, we are devaluing too :-)

: 55000 SEK/7.47 = $7363! Our devaluation seems to have had some
: effect... All you nice americans now have to buy a lot of Hasselblades
: (and Volvos) to get Sweden up and running again...
: 
: /Thommy M.
: 
: --
: Thommy M. MALMSTR\M    |  o ,__Q  |  Lund Institute of Technology
: K{mn{rsv{gen 3 A:202   |  \-\_<,  |  Dept. of Communication Systems
: S-226 46 LUND, SWEDEN  | (*)/'(*) |  Box 118, S-221 00 LUND, SWEDEN
: +46-(0)46 13 21 78     |~~~~~~~~~~|  Tfn:+46-46 10 90 08, Fax:+46-46 14 58 23
-- 
Thor Legvold                 |    This is the strangest life
NorNeXT User Group leader    |    I've ever known...
University of Bergen         |         - Jim Morrison, The Doors
From: ksampath@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Krishna S Sampath)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Clark Photo Developing
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:39:40 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <1993Jan26.213041.4023@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> afd@bellcore.com writes:
>
>In general, I've been pretty happy.  Turn-around time
>is about 10 days, and they are inexpensive.
>
>Clark has these little stickers w/ your address and Clark's
>on 'em that go on the film can.  It's a great idea.  A while
>back the mailer envelope apparently got mangled & a roll fell
>out.  It eventually made its way to Clark anyway.  I got the
>prints.
>
>Be sure to pay the extra 25 cents for "rush" handling.
>I forgot last time and it took 4 weeks.  Whoosh.

I have got a lot of processing done by YORK, clark's biggest competitor. They
have also had these stickers for almost two years now. been pretty happy.

btw, i *never* pay the $0.25 rush handling charge. I still get my pictures
in 6 or 7 days.....

krishna

-- 
krishna s. sampath....graduate research assoc.....kss@ampere.eng.ohio-state.edu
ohio state u, electroscience lab......(614) 292-7981 (w)....(614) 292-7297  (f)
1320 kinnear rd, columbus, oh 43212...(614) 293-0913 (h)...011-91-4542-4127 (H)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: peggys@orca.wv.tek.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Beginners Books
Date: 28 Jan 93 19:51:02 GMT
Reply-To: peggys@orca.wv.tek.com
Organization: Network Displays Manufacturing, Tektronix,Inc

I'm interested in compiling a list of the most recommended books for beginners.
Someone who has only used a point & shoot but is interested in doing a little
experimenting with a Pentax that has both auto & manual modes.   Thanks.

					Peggy

           ===================================================
          | Peggy Shock  				      |
          | Tektronix, Inc., Network Displays Division	      |
          | PO Box 1000, MS 60-430, Wilsonville, OR 97070     |
          | (503) 685-2030 - email: peggys@orca.WV.TEK.COM    |
           ===================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ekim@nyquist.bellcore.com (Michael Mills 21340)
Subject: B&W Film question
Keywords: B&W film
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 04:00:21 GMT


I need to buy some film for a photo class I will be taking.  Can someone
tell me the difference between the following films:
tri-X ( 400 )
Plus-X ( 125 )
T-Max (400 & 100 )

Also on the list of equipment it says to get. Kodak Polyfiber 8 x 10
double weight glossy paper.

I have seen Polyfiber (A)FB-F Glossy Double weight
and (B)Polyfiber FB-F Double weight.  I assume that B is
not glossy and that I should get A. Does this make sense.



Thanks,




Mike


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Questions about Agfa Rodinal developer
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:39:09 GMT

In article <nelson.727720527@skid.ps.uci.edu>, nelson@hepxvt.ps.uci.edu (Matt Nelson) writes:
...
> Try using Ethol TEC for your TP.
> 

Well, 2 little picks, 1) for how long, what EI? and 2) you can get Ethol stuff
in .au.

What I do intend to try soon is C-41 developer for TP. Anyone else done it?

~Paul
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Canon EF teleconverters (was Re: When does price beat out the best choice for you?)
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:20:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1993Jan27.174119.19856@walter.bellcore.com>, jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen) writes:
> 
> |> The front element of the TC protrudes a little in comparison to the
> |> body of the TC.  Similarly, only certain lenses have recessed rear
> |> elements.
> |> 
> |> Thus, on a lens without a recessed rear element, the TCs front element
> |> protrusion prevents the TC from mating with the lens.
> |> 
> |> Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
> 
> Is physical compatibility all what the problem is? How about optical 
> compatibility? 
> 
> If I can mate a lens with a Canon TC physically, does it mean that it will
> work perfectly?

Nothing works "perfectly", and what do you mean by "perfectly" anyway?
If you could get a Canon EF converter on one of the other lenses it
would work in the sense that you would get the expected increase in
effective focal length. In fact you can put the converters on ANY canon
EF lens if you use the extension tube. You only get macro focusing
capabilities however. Optical quality of the result? Probably fair but
not great if you short focal length lenses.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Teleconverters (wasRe: When does price beat out the best choice..)
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:56:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1993Jan26.113934.14097@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
> In <1993Jan26.151903.25808@ryn.mro4.dec.com> faust@faust.enet.dec.com () writes:
> 
> I've heard and read that Tamron makes good stuff, but I haven't seen
> a head-to-head comparison against the Nikon.
> 

I've seen tests where the Tamrons equal, or come very close to, the Nikons
in the center of the frame. The Nikons win out, however, at the edges in
all cases. If you've got the $$ certainly go for Nikon, but the Tamrons
can be a good price/performance buy.

> I think you've misused the word "matched" in this case.  Though from
> the same manufacturer, the Nikon TCs are not made specifically for
> certain lenses.  Canon's TCs (for better or for worse) do not fit on
> any lens except those for which they are designed.  Needlessly

I think you too are misusing the word "matched". A matched teleconverter
has to be designed to work with a specific lens, not a range of lenses. 
They are not common these days, but Vivitar used to have them for some
of their lenses. The Nikons are "matched" in the sense that some are
made specifically for lenses longer than a certain focal length, while
others (of the same power) are for more general use (TC201 vs TC301,
TC14A vs TC14B). In a similar sense I guess you could call the Canon
multipliers "matched" since they are designed to work with a generic
Canon "telephoto lens" (L series lenses longer than 200mm). Now if 
Canon had a teleconverter specifically for, say, the 300/2.8, then
that really would be a "matched" teleconverter, but they don't.
Again with Canon, Tamron teleconverters are good, but Canon teleconverters
are better (and 2-3 times the price!).

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: gderti@dtc.kodak.com (Gzim Derti)
Subject: Maxxum Lenses Wanted
Originator: gderti@derti
Organization: Digital Technology Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 19:47:17 GMT


This is just another stab at trying to purchase a couple of lenses
for my 5xi without paying full new price.

The lenses that I'm looking for are as follows :
   Maxxum AF 135mm f2.8 
   Maxxum AF 85mm  f1.4

Currently I'm asking just to find out if there is anyone out there
willing to discuss parting with either of these lenses.  The best
price that I can find new are $114.95 (B&H and Adorama) for the 135mm,
and $474.95 for the 85mm.  As you can tell from the prices I'm more
interested in finding a good deal on the 85mm clean glass fully functional
due to its extreme cost.  I think I'm going to buy the 135mm new and save
myself alot of hassle.  Then again my birthday's coming up and I may 
splurge for the 85mm (as long as the wife don't find out).  I need a good
piece of glass for indoor and 50mm just doesn't cut it at this point.

Thanks for listening.

Please respond via email to gderti@dtc.kodak.com

Gzim Derti
(Zim Dair-tee)
(aren't parents wonderful)


##########################################################################
Usual disclamatory information left out for brevity but still in effect!!!
##########################################################################
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^  Is that a word or just another engineerism???
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Big Switch: From 35mm to medium format
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:47:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Has anyone, after years of using 35mm SLRs, been able to
succesfully shuck off their old investment, and turn entirely
to medium format, and lived happily ever after?  The ease of
use, ease of carry, low price of hardware and software (film,
processing) make 35mm awfully attractive.  But has anyone turned
their back on all that, and been happy with a shift to medium
format, which shrugs off some of those attractive features of
35mm in exchange for superior image quality?  I'd be interested
in hearing your experiences.

	Dave
From: jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Slide film types
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:18:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Olivetti North America, Spokane, WA

In article <1993Jan21.145032.1396@sys.sweden.dg.com> robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:
>| Kodachrome	1 hour		500+ days
>| Fujichrome	5 hours		200+ days
>
>I've seen quite different numbers in various European photo magazines, both  
>professional and amateur ones. The Fujichrome 50 and 100 slides lasted longer  
>than five hours during projection and Velvia almost as much, but not quite. For  
>storage in the dark, both survived significantly more than 500 days. Fujichrome  
>was in the 50 year range, Kodachrome in the 75 year range and Ektachrome and  
>Agfachrome in the 25 to 35 year range.

I thought I mentioned that the umpty-days figures were at elevated
temperature (140 degrees?) and humidity, SOP for life tests when
you can't wait around for the real numbers.  The estimated conversion
factors for realistic conditions were given, and yield approximately
the figures you (and I) quote.

To add to this, Kodachromes have a _proven_ longevity record now, since
pictures from the 40's are still in good shape.  This assumes, of course,
that the process improvements made since then haven't degraded the life
any.  (I don't suspect that they have).

-- 
+----------------+
! II      CCCCCC !  Jim Cathey
! II  SSSSCC     !  ISC-Bunker Ramo
! II      CC     !  TAF-C8;  Spokane, WA  99220
! IISSSS  CC     !  UUCP: uunet!isc-br!jimc (jimc@isc-br.isc-br.com)
! II      CCCCCC !  (509) 927-5757
+----------------+
			One Design to rule them all; one Design to find them.
			One Design to bring them all and in the darkness bind
			them.  In the land of Mediocrity where the PC's lie.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lds@ccrl.nj.nec.com (Duan-Shin Lee)
Subject: Re: Help photographing in snow (skiing)
Organization: C&C Research Labs, NEC USA, Princeton, N.J.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:46:12 GMT

>rao@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Govindaraju Rao) writes:
 
>>  Here in the Canadian prairies my Minolta X-700 does not function
>>  in temperatures below -15 C. The user's manual offers the remedy of
>>  concealing the camera under your jacket, thereby keeping it
>>  warm, and extricating it just before use. Take your shot and
>>  reinsert it back under your jacket. 
 
>Jake Livni writes:
 
>>>Doesn't this result in condensation forming on and *IN* the camera and
>>>the lenses?  Isn't this a no-no for equipment?
 
>   I took a second look at the X-700 users' manual and realised
>   that I have made an error. The manual DOES NOT suggest the
>   remedy of concealing the camera under your jacket. In fact,
>   as Jake Livni has also pointed out, the manual cautions about
>   condensation problems if the camera is moved from extreme cold
>   outdoors to relatively warm indoors. 

What is the correct way of bringing a camera from extremely cold outdoors
to warm indoors ?

-- 
Duan-Shin Lee
C & C Research Lab, NEC USA
Tel:(609)951-2456
lds@ccrl.nj.nec.com
From: mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: > Cokin filters - any good?
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:42:46 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <37560018@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> bwm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Brian McBride) writes:
>I have been having some difficulty with a cokin neutral graduate filter.  It
>has worked fine for years, but then I started shooting slide film (Velvia and
>Fuji 100).  With those films I get a very strong magenta color cast.  I am told
>this has been reported in the press, though I have not seen anything myself.
>
>bwm

This is because you're not really using a neutral graduate filter, you're using
a grey graduate filter.  Some of the cheaper brands of grey grads have been 
known to give skies a pink cast, although this is the first I've heard of the
problem with Cokin.

Tiffen just came out with a line of filters that fit the Cokin P series holder.
They have real neutral grads.  They're quite a bit more expensive than the
Cokin glass, but it may solve the problem.

Mike

-- 
Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             mikec@spider.co.uk
Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: cjk4800@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Ludwig van Halen Rocks RIoT)
Subject: Re: Need fix for slides developed as prints
Reply-To: cjk4800@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:42:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.191930.29177@spider.co.uk>, mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren) writes:
>
[Earlier message re: e-6 developed in C-41 deleted]

>Was this a one-hour place?  Did you at least have the satisfaction of
>knowing you screwed up their chemistry, or would E6 be OK in C41?
>How do they look?  Like negatives?  Like slides?
>Like Ansel Adams meets Salvadore Dali?  Details, please.
>
>Mike
>
Mike, 

The best way to think of it is that all color films are are pretty much the
same material with some different features.  Chrome films (those intended for
processing in E-6) have high contrast and saturation.  For this, you have to
give up exposure lattitude.  Color films (those intended for c-41) have a
orange mask for printing (I will not get into why right now), have lower
contrast but wider exposure lattitude (for overexposure, that is).

So, what happens when you cross-process chrome film in the c-41 process?  You
end up with an off color negative with low exposure lattitude and high
contrast.  Conversly, you can develop color film in the e-6 process and end up
with a positive with an orange mask and low contrast (pick up a copy of Spin
magazine and I am sure you will find a few examples of this).

Don't worry about roaching the chemistry by doing this.  As long as you don't
run more than 5% or so of work like this, the process should be just fine.

*DISCLAIMER*  PRETTY PLEASE do not try this with KodaChrome.  It is a different
animal altogether.  PRETTIER PLEASE do not process black and white films
through color processes unless that is what it is designed to do (ilford).

Chris


>-- 
>Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             mikec@spider.co.uk
>Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
>Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+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          +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: T-MAX fogged by x-ray machines??
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:16:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.151335.1872@cs.brown.edu>, rjm@cs.brown.edu (Ralph Marshall) writes:
> 
> I purchased a few rolls of TMAX-3200 for a trip to London, and decided
> to heed the "Do Not X-Ray" notice on the box.  I put all of my film in
> a small plastic bag which I handed to the security people, making
> their life easy enough to avoid complaining.  When leaving Gatwick on
> the way back we found a machine which said "This machine will not harm
> film," which I ignored as usual.  However, the guy insisted, so I let
> them do it.  As I was waiting for the bags to come through, I noticed
> that the display monitors were in false color rather than the usual
> black and white.  
> 
> So the question is, do you suppose this was some sort of CAT-scan
> style system rather than X-rays? (This would of course cause no fogging.)
> 

I doubt it. It was probably a sign to give some support to the guards who
insist on everything going into the scanner. In the USA you can (very, very
politely) demand hand inspection if there is a problem (and if you are
prepared for the hassle). Usually there is no problem. Outside the USA
you are at the mercy of the inspectors. It helps to have everything in
see-through containers, and in the case of ISO 3200 film, the box which
clearly states "Do not Xray". By the way I have heard stories about the
lead bags sold for film, which describe a procedure in which the camera
bag is stopped in the Xray field while the operator turns up the Xray
power untill the contents of the bag are visible! Not exactly a good idea
either. I'm sure the false color you saw on the monitor was simply to 
make things easier to see for the operator. Displaying Xray images in
false color on a CRT is quite a simple process.
===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: savoia@sw.stratus.com (Rick Savoia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: When does price beat out the best choice for you?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 13:50:51 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: watts.sqa.stratus.com


Perhaps I should explain that better.  I have a friend
who just bought the Nikon N-90 and wants to get some
of the D series lenses.  The camera store he's buying
them from has a policy of giving you half of what they
could get for your used equipment.  Well, my friend
has decided to do me and himself a favor.  

The lens in question is the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED lens.
My friend would get about $400 from the store for
trading it in on a D-series lens.  He wants to sell 
it to me for about $450-$475.  As I understand it, 
this lens goes from anywhere between $700-$900 
depending on where you look, so I'm getting a great 
deal here for a lens that I know someday I would want
anyway.  

The problem:  I've always wanted a lens with a little 
more length to it.  I sail alot and it's nice to have
a 75-300 for shooting the other boats.  The Nikkor 75-300
f4.5-5.6 is also a great lens, costs about $460 and 
would almost fit my need better. I put all my photo
equipment in my backpack because it's easier to lug
around when I'm riding/walking/travelling.  The 75-300
is lighter than the 80-200 and also much slower.  I
don't think I'd be able to lug the 80-200 around 
quite as easily.  

I took the 80-200 out for a test drive this weekend and
now I've really messed myself up! :)  I love the lens,
it's great to be able to get f2.8 all the time and
would definately get me the shots I want (or have
missed) in low-light situations.  

The question is, where do people draw the line?  Here
I have a chance to get a phenomenal lens for a very
good price but that doesn't quite suit my needs now
(That's not to say that I won't use it, but that 
the way I shoot today, it could prove a little cumbersome)
but may in the future, or I could get a good lens for 
it's normal price and that I might be more comfortable 
with.  

I'm not sure I've laid this out correctly, but I'd 
like to hear peoples opinions on this; opinions on 
the lenses or the predicament would be welcome.

Thanks.

-- 
==========================================================
Rick Savoia                     | "I'm just very selective
savoia@watts.sqa.stratus.com    | about the reality 
Rick_Savoia@vos.stratus.com     | I accept" - Calvin
==========================================================

Newsgroups: rec.photo