HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uli@i13d5.ira.uka.de (Uli Bodenhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 is a good medium format camera ?
Date: 15 Dec 1992 16:21:34 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: rec
NNTP-Posting-Host: i13d5.ira.uka.de

In article <1992Dec15.111940.20308@alf.uib.no>, edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor Legvold) writes:
|> In article <MOREAUX.92Dec4193159@litsun22.epfl.ch> moreaux@litsun22.epfl.ch (Michel Moreaux) writes:
|> >
|> >I am about to buy a Pentax 67 (Santa will also bring me a spotmeter and a
|> >colour analyser ;-). I decided in favour of this camera because I think that
|> >it is less heavy than Mamiya RZ67 and Bronica GS1.
|> >However, the prices of the Pentax lenses are rather low (compared to those
|> >of Mamiya and Bronica). What about the Pentax ? Are the lenses great or not ?
|> 
|> Not.
|> See Color Photo  (German photo magazine) for a semi-complete listing of 
|> lenses they have tested.  Pentax tends to be at the bottom (although in
|> all fairness the MF lenses usually score 5 or 10 points more of 100 than
|> 135mm camera lenses).  

Hmm, if you actually read the issue with the lens tests carefully you
will find that they compared the lenses wide open, at a medium aperture
and at the smallest aperture. The 165mm/2.8 Pentax lens got a mediocre
overall score because it was not as good wide open. BUT: Wide open
with the Pentax lens means f 2.8 while all the other lenses were
f 3.5, f 4 or even more. If you compare the lenses at equal apertures,
the Pentax scores well.

If I remember right, the Pentax 55mm lens is on top of the 6x7 wide angle
lenses. The 105mm/f2.4 also suffered from the performance at f2.4. This
is a serious critique (sp?) of this test. They didin't compare lenses at
comparable apertures.

	Uli

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: EF 14mm L Not As Good As Sigma 14 mm
Summary: Because of aperture difference!
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:19:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.022438.486@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen) writes:
>That is what Pop. Photography says in the latest report. 
>
>Contrary to popular belief, money does not talk. The $1800 Canon 14/f2.8 L
>lens is a worse performer than the $430 Sigma 14/f3.5 lens. Canon should
>take this black sheep away to maintain the prestige of the "L" family.

It's also nearly 1 stop slower.

It's *very* common for a cheap f/3.5 lens to be sharper than an expensive
f/2.8 or faster lens.  The f/3.5 lens is intrinsically a much easier
design problem.




-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington     internet mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu :   Verbum caro
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :    factum est
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :  et habitavit
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :   in nobis...
From: jruschme@opus.starlab.csc.com (John Ruschmeyer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: grain
Keywords: need a lot of grains
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:38:12 GMT
Organization: A LIFO

In article <1g647mINN78m@crcnis1.unl.edu> kting@cse.unl.edu (Kea Ting) writes:
>Hi,
>    I am trying to get some ideas of how to get a lot of grains on my
>picture or slide (for special mood). Any idea on how to get a lot
>of grains on b&w , color and slide film is welcome.

It seems like I remember something about getting an interesting grain
effect by processing C-41 as E-6  (or was it vice versa?).  Anyone else
heard this one?

<<<John>>>
-- 
John Ruschmeyer	            "But the man who can post, when he hasn't
Computer Sciences Corp.	     got a host, is the king of the whole wide net."
Eatontown, NJ 07724
	Opinions expressed herein are mine alone.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sch@unx.sas.com (Steve Holzworth)
Subject: Re: Enlarger's for Color?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:48:18 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.

<KAGHV@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:

>I would like to break into color printing.  I have the ingredients for a basic
>b&w darkroom but my enlarger cannot be fitted with a color head.  Any
>suggestions for 'low budget' color enlarger's and related equipment would be
>appreciated.  Are those Daylab contraptions any good?  Thanks for any help.

Just buy some filters. A color ENLARGING filter set is around $40.00. You can 
get filters that are placed above the neagtive (CC) or below the lense (CP).
The former are much more desireable than the latter. If possible, you want
to avoid putting anything between the lense and the paper. It just adds more
potential dirt/scratch/fingerprint sources to the final print. Most B/W
enlargers have some sort of filter drawer above the negative, specifically
for this purpose.
--
Steve Holzworth
sch@unx.sas.com                         "Do not attribute to poor spelling
x6872                                    That which is actually poor typing..."
SAS Institute - Open Systems R & D                      - me
Cary, N.C.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: aj882694@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Andre George Jenkins)
Subject: Depth of Field
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:58:40 GMT

Sorry,

I know I've recently asked for the DoF formulae, but a tidy-up of my hard drive
'tidied up' some things that shouldn't have been: I threw ot the folder they
were in, accidently.

If some kind soul could post them here or mail them too me, I'd be very
grateful.

Thanks again

Andre
aj882694@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ong@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG)
Subject: Sound Blaster Pro CD drive does PhotoCD (single/multi-session) 
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 16:19:07 GMT

We  downloaded the PhotoCD driver from Creative BBS called SBPCDXA.EXE,
and bought Kodak's ACCESS Program and PhotoCD Sampler ($32) and 
wowla, the picture looks fantastic!  With the ACCESS program (installed
on your system as a Windows program), you can save the entire or cropped
image into a file (type) of your choice.  You can either save it in
16-color, 256-color, or 24-bit color.

Be aware that your old VGA card may not cut it.  This is because older
VGA cards have only 6-bit DAC's instead of 8-bit DAC's.  I have 6-bit
DAC's hence it looks dull, but it looks fantastic on my friend's 
24-bit VGA card.

Also, the maximum size is 3000x2000.  But to load that image you must
have greater than 8-mag DRAM onboard.  My friend has 8-mag yet he
ran out of space when attempting to load 3000x2000.  1500x1000 loads
ok in his system.

So I am getting a 24-bit VGA card, 16-mag DRAM, etc, etc.

I managed to get hold of a Kodak guy, who explained to me what single
and multi-sessions means.  He said that if you bring in 2 rolls of
film and put it on a disc (which holds up to 4 rolls maximum), then
the 2 rolls will be the first session.  And let say 2 months later
you want to add a 3rd roll onto the same CD (send in CD plus exposed roll),
that 3rd roll on the CD will be the 2nd session.

The way I see it I would definitely not send in my CD for put a  2nd
session on it.  Why risk any possible mishandling that may damage the
already-processed CD?  So far I have not seen the cost of using a new
CD as compared to using the old one (I assume there is no or negligenble
cost).

So, what printer are you guys getting to print PhotoCD?  I am looking at
a cheap HP 500C... 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Focus adjustment (was Minolta or Canon?)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:03:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Keywords: Which one?

In article <1992Dec12.174906.9095@cs.mun.ca> michael9@odie.cs.mun.ca (Michael Sullivan) writes:
>michael9@odie.cs.mun.ca (Michael Sullivan) writes:
>
>
>>	[ The story thus far - may old Pratica has bit the bucket, so I need a new
>>	camera, but I don't want to give up my Tamron 70-210 zoom.  Many people
>>	have recommended a Pentax K1000 as a replacement.]
>
>  BTW, the specific problem is that the camera is not in focus when it claims
>to be.
>
>  I have discovered that the problem does not seem to be what most people
>suggested - that the focus screen has moved, but may be that the mirror
>support has moved.  The mirror support can be adjusted by nut that holds it
>onto the rest of the camera.  Turning the nut raises or lowers the mirror
>a very small amount.  Calling it  a nut is a bit of a misnomer, actually.
>It looks nut-like, but does not come off, and his held in place by a pin.
>But turning it does produce the above effects.
...
>	What I have been doing thus far is: (by trial and error) setting the focus
>on the lens  to a specific distance, measuring that distance, and then
>adjusting the "nut" till the camera is in focus at that distance.  Repeating
>the measuring phase for various distances.
>
>	The problem is, do the measurements on the lens give the distance from
>the front of the lens, the end of the lens, or the film?  It doesn't 
>make much of a diffence at over a few feet, but at 3 feet and under 
>it does seem to make a difference.

Almost all lenses are calibrated to read from the film plane.

> Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Take a piece of film with a sharp image or take a (blank) microscope
slide and put some scratches in it.  Make a target of white paper with
a few obvious black lines.  Open the back of the camera and make the
shutter stay open.  Tape the film/slide into the film plane with
masking tape.  Shine a bright light through the back.  Focus the lens
so the image is sharp on the target.  Now close the shutter and see
how those black lines look in the veiwfinder.

  -- David Jacobson

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Color balance setups for specific films
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:12:58 GMT

In article <BzD8qI.7Bt@javelin.sim.es.com>, rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs) writes:
...
> But by far the most SHOCKING result of the test was a contact proof sheet
> of the first 5 frames of each of the 8 rolls.   I had always thought that
> C-41 was C-41, and that most labs kept their C-41 processing lines in
> tight control.  NOT SO!  The proof sheet showed 1.5 - 2 stop density
> difference between the lightest and darkest roll, and at least a 20-unit
> color difference among some of them (as referenced to my experience with
> a Beseler color head).  The only variable in this test was which lab
> processed the film.
> 

Could you run a densitometer over the gray card negs and tell us what you find?

No lab should have a 'bad day'. If they do, their control is non-existant, or
they have had a disaster ( chem spill or such ) and sould tell you straight off
and give you AT LEAST a replacement film. Free processing of it would help sooth
nerves and keep customers too.

~Paul

PS The only place bad days sould appear is on the control strips that are done
BEFORE any customer film goes in!

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dipto@umbc4.umbc.edu (Dipto Chakravarty)
Subject: Pentax IQ Zoom / its best competitor
Organization: Univ. of MD
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:53:22 GMT


Before going and buying a Pentax IQ Zoom, I wanted to know if we
should be looking at any better machines in the similar price range.
Is the Yashica T4, which was praised by the Consumers Reports, an
equivalent choice? Our holiday shopping budget for this camera is 
$200.

Please email me your answers. Thanx in advance.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: michael9@odie.cs.mun.ca (Michael Sullivan)
Subject: Focus adjustment (was Minolta or Canon?)
Keywords: Which one?
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:49:06 GMT

michael9@odie.cs.mun.ca (Michael Sullivan) writes:


>	[ The story thus far - may old Pratica has bit the bucket, so I need a new
>	camera, but I don't want to give up my Tamron 70-210 zoom.  Many people
>	have recommended a Pentax K1000 as a replacement.]

  BTW, the specific problem is that the camera is not in focus when it claims
to be.

  I have discovered that the problem does not seem to be what most people
suggested - that the focus screen has moved, but may be that the mirror
support has moved.  The mirror support can be adjusted by nut that holds it
onto the rest of the camera.  Turning the nut raises or lowers the mirror
a very small amount.  Calling it  a nut is a bit of a misnomer, actually.
It looks nut-like, but does not come off, and his held in place by a pin.
But turning it does produce the above effects.

  Now I have to recalibrate the mirror position.  You may ask why I'm
doing this myself, why I don't just give it to a repair shop.  Well, there 
are no camera repair shops in this provice.  The camera retail outlets all 
tell me I'll have to pay lot's of money and wait 3 or more months before I 
get the camera back.

	What I have been doing thus far is: (by trial and error) setting the focus
on the lens  to a specific distance, measuring that distance, and then
adjusting the "nut" till the camera is in focus at that distance.  Repeating
the measuring phase for various distances.

	The problem is, do the measurements on the lens give the distance from
the front of the lens, the end of the lens, or the film?  It doesn't 
make much of a diffence at over a few feet, but at 3 feet and under 
it does seem to make a difference.


 Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
-- 
|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: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Filter/Optics Question...
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:01:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <2024@intermec.UUCP> jay@intermec.com () writes:
>   Question:  Is is possible to use a filter somewhat smaller than
>	      the front element of the lens it's put on and avoid
>	      vignetting by stopping down.
>		 
>	      Put another way, does stopping down result in a smaller
>	      area of the front element being used to create the image.

You can probably do this.  To find out, open the back of the camera
and open the shutter using bulb or the slowest shutter speed and the
desired f-stop.  (With many whizzo electronic cameras you have to
defeat an interlock.)  Now look through the corner of the frame.  If
you see just the shape defined by the diaphragm you are ok.  If you
see a football (American usage) shaped area defined by two circles you
have vignetting.  but if you can't see the filter ring you are no
worse off than the lens was by itself.  It might be hard to tell, and
you will have to compare filter off vs. filter on.

  -- David Jacobson
From: pjs@gvgdsd.GVG.TEK.COM (Peter J. Stonard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Vivitar PS35 repair?
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:24:36 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gvgdsd.gvg.tek.com
Originator: pjs@gvgdsd

I've just found this group so I hope the following question
is appropriate.

I've been using a Vivitar PS35 auto everthing 35mm camera
for about a year - my first experience of the polycarbonate
point 'n shoot cameras.

For it's size and cost I was very impressed - until it broke.

The last couple of rolls were out of focus. Thinking it is
not worth the repair, or the evaluation cost of repair, I'm 
ready to throw it away.

Out of curiousity I took the covers off and thought the lens
assembly was binding or had dirt in it. After a quick clean I was
pleased that it now 'stepped' when given different subject distances 
I ran one more roll through it. Alas, it's no better.

Given that I'm just as likely to break it than fix it, I'm
willing to look inside again. This time I'm interested in the single
lens adjust (or set) screw (that I could find). Could it be an 
infinity adjustment? Might it have slipped during a knock or drop 
to the floor? If I place a ground glass in the focal plane and 
open the shutter, point it at an infinitly distant object (the moon?)
could I reset this screw for sharp focus??

Anyone tried to repair one of these? Took it apart? Had one that
lost focus?

Many thanks!!

++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++
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.
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: TMAX vs. AGFA
Keywords: TMAX, AFGA
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:13:12 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <7054@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu>, 6500gw@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Gary Wang) writes:

> Recently, I have shot several roll of TMAX 100 and AGFA 25.
> I processed TMAX with the TMAX developer and AGFA with
> Rodinal (1:25). 
> 
> I found that the contrast in AGFA 25 is not as good as TMAX 100,
> and I think I underexposed the AGFA film.

The development times that Kodak gives for their developers and films
yields a higher contrast than what Agfa gives for their developers and
the films they support (which includes those from Kodak and Ilford).

If your APX 25 negs doesn't have enough detail in the shadows, they are
underexposed and you should give them some more exposure the next time
(like EI 16 or 20 instead of EI 25). This will also make the highlights
denser in the negative. If you still want to increase the contrast or
if the shadows are OK but the highlights are too thin, lengthen the
development time by 10 to 20%. It is wise to make the increase in small
steps for each batch of film you develop at the same time.

> Has anyone compare these two films ? I havn't printed
> anything from those neg yet. AGFA 25 supposely to have
> finer grain than TMAX. 

It has. T-Max 100 can also be improved by developing it in Rodinal
rather than in T-Max developer or in D-76. I would also suggest
you to use Rodinal diluted 1+50 rather than 1+25. Agfa has the
development times for both dilutions. Even higher dilutions are also
possible, like 1+75, 1+100 and even 1+200, but you're unlikely to get
any official statements on them from Agfa.

-- 
--------------------- This mass of gibberish came from ---------------------
         ____
        |    |               Robert Claeson
        |    |               Data General AB
 _______|____|_              Box 28
|    |    _    |_____        S-164 93 KISTA
|_/\ |   / \   |     |       Sweden
| \/ |   \_/   |   . |
|    |    |    |_____|       robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
|____|_________|-
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mguyott@eriador.prime.com (M. Guyott)
Subject: Message for Thomas Helke.
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:55:14 GMT

In article <4866@wet.UUCP> egret@wet.UUCP (thomas helke) writes:
>***FOR SALE:
>
>Nikon FM2(N) - black body - $350

Thomas,

I tried to reach you but my mail message bounced.  I am interested in the
FM2 body but have some questions.  Please send me email direct with a
phone number or give me a call.

Thanks, Marc
----
Two of the worst things we teach our children are that a knowledge of science
is nice but not necessary, and a knowledge of sex is necessary but not nice.

Marc Guyott              Constellation Software, Inc.          (508) 620-2800
                         Framingham, Mass. 01701 USA                Ext. 3135
mguyott@primerd.prime.com       ...!{uunet, decwrl}!primerd.prime.com!mguyott
mguyott@eriador.prime.com       ...!{uunet, decwrl}!eriador.prime.com!mguyott
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: markt@cup.hp.com (Mark Thompson)
Subject: Re: Quick contact sheet proofer
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:52:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

I find that the 1/4" glass that i got from a glass shop made a nice contact 
printer.  I got 11x14 and I think he charged $8.

Related topic.  has anyone found any sheet type neg sleves that hold the
negs in the proper orientation for direct proofing.  I'm using the Savage
type that is suppose to be good for proofing and it doesn't fit nicely on
an 8x10.
From: rkatos@hpunila.MSR.HP.COM (Ray Katos)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:27:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Film Flatness
Organization: Hewlett Packard Sales, Naperville IL
Newsgroups: rec.photo

Sorry, about the above response.

Just a note, Hasselblad goes to alot of trouble to make sure the
film magazine roll holder is matched to the case to assure optimal
film flatness and positioning. There are serial numbers on each that
should match if you buy one used.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: fourie@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Andre Fourie)
Subject: Tamron Novoflex 60-300 zoom lens
Keywords: Lens, Zoom, Tamron, Novoflex
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Novell Users).
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:07:27 GMT

I have been offered a Tamron Novoflex 60-300 zoom lens. Range in f-stops 
appr 3.8 - 5.4. On the lens it states that the optics is made by Tamron for 
Novoflex (West German company). Price offered was approx $500.00. I need 
information on the following:

- How good is Tamron optics and the optics of this lens specifically.
- What is the price for a new lens.
- Anyone with experience on this type of lens.

Andre Fourie
From: monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re:Was Hasselblad: VF pic. area? MO pricing?
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:13:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: flop.1gr1ijINN66m
Distribution: usa
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobo.ece.orst.edu

In article <1992Dec17.082452.29391@news.Hawaii.Edu> yee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jonathan Yee) writes:
>
>	I've noticed that Nikon, and perhaps others, specify how much of
>the picture area is covered by the viewfinder.. As I'm considering Hassel-
>blad -- I guess the "Classic" 500 C/M kit -- the question comes up as to
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	 Better buy soon if you want to benefit from the rebate program-
	 see below.

 (stuff deleted)
>	MO pricing. Cambridge Camera Exchange seems to have the best price
>for the Classic: $1995 vs. $2295 or higher at all other MO outfits I've
>seen. I suppose this may have to do with them selling a non-USA warranty
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>product. Anybody care to speculate or reason why *should* there be a
>difference in price?...

  This seems to be a reasonable guess, but I don't know for certain.
  Hasselblad will give you an extra A12 film magazine if you buy a
  new 500 Classic outfit by Dec. 19, 1992. This is a substantial rebate
  if you consider the price of a magazine (roughly $600.)
  (2295-600=$1695, more or less - but you have to part with $2295)
  The Hassey offer only applies to new merchandise purchased from an
  authorized USA dealer. I've noticed B&H and a number of other 
  MO shops promoting the rebate in their advertisements. My best bet
  is that at $1995, the Cambridge price doesn't include the rebate.
  You need to confirm that, though.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ian@rats.demon.co.uk ("Ian A. Young")
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:30:04 -0500 
From: Luis Abdon Cifuentes <lc0v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: N90 + Tamron 90/2.5 = kaput!

Monday I was in a store that had a 'Nikon special' with a Nikon
representative and all the stuff.  After I while, I asked to try the
Tamron AF 90/2.5 macro lens in the N90. They guy reluctantly put it on
the N90, and guess what, the N90 died!. No lcd display,  nothing.

The same lens in a N8008s worked fine.  Another Tamron lens, the
35-105/2.8 worked fine in both cameras.

Of course, the Nikon rep. was very happy about this!.  Has anybody had
similar problems with a non-Nikon lens in the N90?
Newsgroups: rec.photo