HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Rangefinder calibration
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:50:31 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <4603@daily-planet.concordia.ca>, honna@concour.cs.concordia.ca
(SEGEL honna) wrote:
>  I want to re-calibrate the range-finder.  I'm not shy about the surgery.
> I need to know a few things about range-finders generally, and about my 
> situation particularly, to do my calibration.

honna-

I recommend setting the focus so that the images coincide at infinity, with
the end of lens rotation also set at infinity.  At that point, the
resulting infinity image at the film plane should be sharp, using ground
glass and a magnifier.  Be sure that the ground side of the glass is facing
the lens.  Otherwise, the image won't be at the film plane.

At other distances, the accuracy of the rangefinder depends on the shape of
a cam, in cameras I'm familiar with.  There may always be a slight
discrepancy between the distance scale and actual focus.  However, actual
focus should agree with coincidence of the rangefinder images, at all
distances, once infinity is set.

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: PZ-1 over the EOS 10s, N8008s
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:45:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul29.154536.13570
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <3557@cs.rit.edu> kar@cs.rit.edu (Kenneth A Reek) writes:
>
>	Much worse IMHO is the plethora of glitzy photos that avid amateurs
>will produce, ones that look just like the glitzy examples in the camera's
>instruction manual, ones that the photographer will think are fantastic
>solely because they exhibit the same glitzy effect as the one in the manual.
>I hope that I am not forced to view too many of these in my lifetime.

Hey, a good picture is a good picture. Only the photographer will know if
the picture is good or not, and he/she will be their own worst critic as well.

>	As manufacturers compete with each other for the "most features in
>a camera" prize, the features that are added later tend to be less useful
>than the features that were added earlier (obviously).

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Any feature made "later", will
eventually become the feature that was added "earlier", as more and more
features are added.

Gary
-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:53:22 GMT

In article <+1pmx2p.hchong@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>From article <1992Jul27.190319.29543@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington):
>> In article <1992Jul27.183634.4539@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>>If you can't get in to a certain event to take pictures, then
>>>how are you ever going to sell what you don't have, or can't get, simply
>>>because of stupid rules that try and separate some photographers from
>>>others. Its the old catch 22 syndrome.
>> 
>> Surely _some_ salable pictures can be taken without being granted special
>> access...
>
>With today's desktop publishing on PC, all you need is a cheap laser
>printer, a 386 PC, a word publisher like Word Perfect (or other more powerful
>word processors), you can easily put out a free paper (10 copies?  distributed
>to you friends and relatives?).  What is more you need for you to be as
>legitimate as the state's largest paper with circulation of 500,000?
>Is there is registry of newspaper publisher?  What? 

How much do you figure it would cost you to purchase the aformentioned equipment?

-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
From: philiph@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Ilford by phone; PanF by Tmax
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:36:37 GMT

Thurs 30 July 92
The 1-800 number somebody posted several weeks ago for Ilford
does not work in Canada.  Does anyone know of an Ilford
information line (perhaps tolled if necessary) that will 
work in Canada?
	On another point:  I want to develop some Ilford Pan-F 
in Kodak's T-Max developer, and I do not have the film or
the inclination to do some testing first. tsk tsk.
I want to get the best grain I can, with optimal tonal
range too. I know:  it can be a trade-off.  I usually use
Ilfosol-S for this, but have none.  Does anyone have any
suggestions for "best results" with Pan-F in T-Max?
(For instance, can someone tell me that Pan-F responds just like 
Pan-X? Or that T-Max developer works 20% faster than Ilfosol-S?)

			-Philip
Philip Hiscock
philiph@kean.ucs.mun.ca
From: kar@cs.rit.edu (Kenneth A Reek)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Shooting into the sun
Date: 29 Jul 92 02:24:33 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY

In article <13863@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> rickh@ems.cdc.com (Richard Herwig) writes:
>I'd like to shoot an early morning sceene over a wetland with a lot of ground
>fog.  The shot is toward the east so the morning sun is right there.  ...
	
	Try shooting just as the sun is rising; it is weakest then due to the
atmosphere, but the wetland will be illuminated mostly by sky.  The sun and
the rest of the scene will be in closest balance then.

	Another approach would be to try a graduated neutral density filter.
--
Kenneth A. Reek				kar@cs.rit.edu
Rochester Institute of Technology	rutgers!rochester!rit!kar
From: franz@cs.washington.edu (Franz G. Amador)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Novice 4x5 field gear questions
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:53:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: beaver.1992Jul24.005343.12322
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

I'm putting together a 4x5 kit that I can take into the field, and I'm
hoping that some of you will be willing to help me out a little.

I need some sort of changing bag.  KEH lists one called the "Rokunar
Portable Darkroom (27"x30" for $26, 36"x45" for $39).  Anybody know
about these?  Would the small one be adequate?  How 'bout "The
Changing Room", which Adorama lists for $84.95 (ouch), but looks
nifty?

Do you just carry an old empty film box to put your exposed sheets
into, or is there some slicker system?

I'm hoping to make a lightweight focusing cloth by sewing together two
pieces of coated nylon ripstop fabric, one white (for the outside;
cooler in the sun) and one black.  Seems like it'd be adequately
lighttight, and I could drape it over the camera if it started
raining.  Has anyone tried anything like this?

Lens protection: are those "lens wraps" good enough to protect lenses
put in a stuff sack in a backpack, or is there a better option?

And more generic 4x5 questions:  any recommendations for focusing
loupes?  There's quite a variety out there, and I'm at a loss at
how to choose.  I'd certainly prefer light, tough, and cheap, but
still good enough to do the job.

Lastly, are all film holders pretty much good enough, or would I
be screwing myself if I bought the cheapest?

Thanks in advance to all,

Franz Amador
franz@cs.washington.edu
{rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!franz
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Gleichauf)
Subject: Loupes, experiences with high quality types?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 15:26:12 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Keywords: Loupe, transparencies.

	About a year ago I was purusing a copy of Shutterbug and noticed
a short column praising the virtues of a loupe that was being sold
by a small optical design company in Decauter, Georigia.  I have since lost
the address. 
	Does anyone out there know the address of the company?  Even better
do you have experience with this companiy's products?  I recall that it was
about $175.
	Further comments comparing Schneider, Peek (which some here seem 
to favor), Hoya and others will be appreciated.  My interest is for 35 and
6x6 light table use on transparencies.

							Paul
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Spot meters
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:53:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.120639.24370@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal) writes:
>
>The Minolta Spotmeter F is actually very good for a number of applications.
>
>If you require a number of comparative readings you just take your
>mid-tone reading and push the A for averaging button, and all subsequent
>readings will be shown as plus or minus that reading..yes, you have to
>remember things, but bear in mind that even with the Sekonic, all you have
>\in the memory is a bunch of numbers, you still have to remember
>which parts of the iamge they refer to....
>
>As far as accuracy is convcerned, the Spotmeter F is dead on and I have
>used in in high flare backlit situations with ease and reliable results.
>
>brian
>

I concur.  I use the Minolta SpotMeter F and I give it kudos
for it's performance and reliability.  SIDE NOTE:  A tool
will only work when used properly and even more importantly
read the manual for the tool and practice.
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Kodak CC vs. Durst CC values
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:54:48 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

Is there anyone who happens to have a chart or a formula for translating
between Durst and Kodak CC values? Or possibly a pointer to where I can
find one?

Thank's in advance,

Robert

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: yuanj@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Which Camera to buy?
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:35:52 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

In article <711800287.F00009@therose.pdx.com>, Robert.Church@p27.f319.n105.z1.therose.pdx.com (Robert Church) writes:
> WSC>   Nikon N6006
> 
> Not as many gadgets as any of the others, but you gotta' love Nikon.  Their
> optics are very good quality and their cameras are solid.  I own a N2020 and

And their prices are very high, too.  You get what you pay for.  I think the
high end Canon optics are also of high quality, if not better than the Nikon
counterparts.  But there are a lot of low end products from Canon, not so from
Nikon.

If you go with low budget plans, Canon is a better choice.  If you have high
expectations in you mind, Nikon serves you better.

Just my 2c.


J. Yuan

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:39:26 GMT

| So, how about privide me with a step by step on how you would
| overide the AE and auto-DX in your favorite AF/AE camera.

					   -Anthony

Sorry if I offended anyone. Sometimes I'm more outspoken than
I perhaps should be. :-)

On my camera, a Nikon N8008s, there are several simple ways to override
auto-exposure. The first is to use exposure compensation, which requires 
pushing one button with my index finger and turning the thumbwheel one 
or more click-stops (1/3-stop per click). It's a one-hand operation and 
takes a couple of seconds, tops.

The second way to override AE is to switch to metered manual. This
involves pressing a different button (this time with my left hand)
and turning the thumbwheel one click stop counter-clockwise. This
takes probably one second. The thumwheel now controls shutter speeds,
which (for me, at least) is much more convenient than turning a
conventional shutter speed dial.

I can also control auto-exposure by pointing the camera at something
other than my composed scene and sliding a switch near the thumbwheel.
This is even quicker than switching to manual or setting exposure
compensation. 

Overriding auto-DX encoding also requires pushing one button with my
left hand and turning the thumwheel until the desired film speed is
shown on the LCD panel. This could take as much as three seconds!

| ...they can't use bulk loaded film because not a single one of 
| them know how to overide their camera.

This may not be the fault of their cameras! When things aren't obvious,
it helps to read the manual. Then again, maybe their cameras ARE too
complicated. Not all AF/AE cameras are created equal. My 8008s was my 
first AF/AE camera. I used it for several months before I ever read the
manual. There was no need to! Everything is right there in plain sight
and is (for the most part) extremely fast and easy to use.

Maybe I was just lucky!

	     -Alan

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mab@duvel.princeton.edu (Matt Blaze)
Subject: Press passes & news photography
Summary: it's just not that much of a big deal
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: 29 Jul 92 03:33:53 GMT

Back around '82 or '83 i did a bit of freelance news photography
in new york city as a kind of college part time job.  I actually managed
to get an NYPD press pass for a year or so, and found it's main use
was to stroke my ego.  The rules (as they were then and as i remember
them) were that to get a press card issued to yourself as a freelancer
you had to show a portfolio of 3 published news shots within the past
year, and meet a number of irritating but not insurmountable bureaucratic
requirements and filing deadlines.   The major news orgs (such as the
daily news, ny post, etc) are also issued "blank" press cards that they
can loan to their regular freelancers.  These don't have your picture
on them but as far as i could tell were just useful (or useless, as it
were).

Remember that all the card does (aside from look really cool, which
i must admit made me glad i had it) is let you get behind a police
line when they decide its safe to do so.  But remember that by the
time any kind of police line has been established, the staff photographers
from all the local papers have long been there, and so your freelance
photos aren't really worth much to them.  Before the police line
is set up (when things are still chaotic), anyone with lots of
camera equipment can photograph most anything without question.  And
even if there is a police line, you can often sort of walk behind it
anyway if you look like you belong and aren't bothering anyone or
getting yourself into trouble.

I don't know anything about the procedures for getting in to
things like sporting events and other such things, but i assume
that that could be one area where a police pass could actually
come in handy.

Actually, I found freelance spot news photography to be fairly easy to
break in to, but a hell of a lot of work.  You had to be really fast
and get good shots of a major newsworthy event BEFORE ALL THE "REGULAR"
PHOTOGRAPHERS GET THERE.  This means being willing to run around
lots of bad neighborhoods with a scanner and being ready to JUMP
at the first sign of something interesting.  In general, i'd say the "real"
staff photographers and other freelancers were supportive and friendly,
especially if you don't appear fixated on press passes and special
privileges.

Not a job i'd want to do again, though...

-matt
--
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mason@p.igp.ethz.ch (Scott Mason)
Subject: EOS zoom lens recommendations
Keywords:  EOS, zoom lenses
Reply-To: mason@p.igp.ethz.ch
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
 Institute of Geodesy and Photogrammetry
 CH-8093 Zurich    (Switzerland)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 08:49:59 GMT

hi,

I'm currently considering purchasing 2 zoom lenses for an EOS 630 - any recommendations, comments, ideas would be appreciated...it's all getting a bit confusing and I have, admittedly,
rather limited experience.

zoom 100-300mm: 
--------------
Seems to me that 2 (middle-priced) options exist here based on the test results published in
the (german) Fotomagazin which gives ratings based on optics and mechanics (out of 10)

1. Canon EF 100-300 USM - scored 8.8  and 9.4  ($259)
2. Sigma 75-300 APO - scored 9.8 and 9.2. ($299)

The Sigma has a better range and apparently considerably better optics for basically the 
same price? Anyone had any experiences with it? Does the Sigma match the USM lens in
speed and quietness?

zoom 20-35mm:
-------------
options appear to be:

1. Sigma 21-35 (3.5-4.2) - scored 9.2 and 8.4 ($317)
2. Tokina 20-35 (3.5-4.5) - scored 9 and 9 ($370)

Again these options seem pretty close in price and quality. But does it make sense to buy
a wide-angle zoom? Would 2 separate lenses e.g. 24 (Canon 2.8)  and 28 (Canon 2.8), be
better value - except the lens-changing hassle?

Finally, is the argument of staying with the manufacturer's lenses (in this case Canon) to
avoid incompatibility with new body models an important consideration here?

Many thanks...

scott


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa)
Subject: Re: Best Magazine for Photography
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:42:24 GMT

If you are interested in seeing images, try aperature - an expensive,
very arty quarterly. You shold be able to find it in bookstores along
with the photo books (it is rerely stuck in with the magazines)

<dp>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: INFO SOUGHT: Nikon-compatible Kiev 19
From: mckenzie@kscdl0.cad.ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:24:40 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <1992Jul27.171758.7599@praxis.co.uk>, drb@praxis.co.uk (David
Brownbridge) wrote:
> Has anyone seen or used or got any further information about this beast
> 	"... Russian manufactured Kiev 19 camera, ........
> 	 The 35mm manual camera is of all-metal construction with shutter
> 	 speeds from 1/2 to 1/500s, has built-in TTL meter and TAKES NIKON
> 	 LENSES"

David-

This camera is advertised in the U.S., by Saul Camensky's Lens Exchange, in
Connecticut.  The advertisement was in the June and August issues of
Shutterbug magazine.

I have no further information about the Kiev 19, but suspect I would prefer
the Nikon EM for actual use!  I do not recall the exact price, but an EM
with series E, 50mm lens, would cost about two thirds as much here.

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
From: x89marenger@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: TRAINING: NEW YORK INST. OF PHOTOGRAPHY?
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:06:49 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF ANYONE HAS TAKEN THE NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF PHOTOGRAPY
COARSE. WOULD YOU RECOMMEND IT?

 
THEY ARE NOW OFFERING THE $698 COARSE FOR ONLY $498 UNTIL JULY 31. ANY COMMENTS
WOULD BE APPRECIATED.



KEITH
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Summary: Press credentials can't be bought
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:22:47 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

The only press credentials I've ever dealt with were for getting into
COMDEX free (and into the press room).

There, they want either:
 - a magazine masthead or publisher's business card with your name on it
    (a business card for oneself as free-lancer won't do); 
 - a sample of recently published work; or
 - a letter from an editor or publisher, assigning you to cover COMDEX.

A card purchased from IFPO would carry _no_ weight at all.  In fact if it
were recognized for what it is, it would carry _negative_ weight, because
they'd feel it's a petty attempt at deception.

You don't become a professional by buying ID cards from IFPO.  You become
one by actually selling your photographs, and proving that you have done so
regularly.

-- 
==========================================================================
Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:16:23 GMT

In article <PHR.92Jul23130212@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
>By most people's definitions, a pro is someone whose primary source
>of income is photography.
>
The key word is *primary* source of income.  I work full
time for Pacific Bell and I occassionaly shoot weddings,
retirements and other events.  I recently sold my first
photograph as opposed to selling my services and I consider
myself an advanced amateur, NOT a pro.  My income from
my photographic services do not comprise a majority of my
income.
>
>Around here, the press passes you need for the police to let you into
>news events like riots are issued by the police depts themselves;
>generally you need to be employed by a newspaper or news agency to get
>one.  This means a real newspaper, not an amateur one.  They do issue
>some to freelance pro news photographers but these are -very- hard to
>get.  You need to have a large track record (lots of published work)
>to get these.
>
Your second point has validity insofar that a press pass is
required.  However, if it looks *official*, you can get by
most lines of security.  Case in point.  A friend of mine
sent something like $50 to an organization (IFPO?) and he
received a very official looking Membership Card.  He has
strapped his F4 & 8008 Nikons with his 300mm lens on one
body and a zoom on the other, monopod, photo vest and his
Membership Card pinned to his vest and has been able to
shoot with the *press* folks at the Oakland A's/San
Francisco Giants/49er's/concerts without anyone ever
stopping him. (I believe he pasted a passport photo on the
card and re-laminated it.)
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
From: alan@km4ba.uucp (Alan Barrow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: olympus IS-1, eats batteries or defect...?
Date: 22 Jul 92 05:57:52 GMT
Organization: km4ba's packet radio gateway

Maybe I just got a good one, but I am getting about 10-15 rolls per
battery set. I do use the flash quite a bit, but am aware about
leaving the camera on for long periods.

I think most people like to play autofocus all the time, and that
eats batteries. When the laser-like led (It is bright!) fires to
give the autofocus something to use for contrast it must really eat 'em.

I feel this is true because my first set barely lasted 2-3 rools, and I 
was focusing on everything. (IE: focusing but not shooting) Since I have 
become used to the camera the batteries last much longer.

I still carry a spare set, because you will get only about one additional roll
once the indicator gives you a warning.

With a two year old, and a two month old, we eat film. (My kids think
Ektar cans are building blocks! :-> ) 

John, will they not fix yours under extended waranty? I think it would 
have to have a catastrophic failure. (Get creative!)


 Alan Barrow  km4ba | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack
 jab@               | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched
 hpuerca.atl.hp.com | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
 ..!gatech!kd4nc!   | All those moments will be lost in time -
         km4ba!alan | like tears in rain. Time to die.          Roy Batty