HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barnick@mesa.Kodak.COM (William M Barnick x73638)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 2 color printing ?
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:46:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY

In article <1992Sep26.101740.2747@crash> ed@crash.cts.com (Ed Aiken) writes:
>
>     A couple of questions about printing color negatives.
>
>     First, at a recent photo judging, a number of color abstracts were
>submitted.  The judge repeatedly said that unlike photos of recognizable
>subjects, there is no reason to seek accurate color filtration in
>printing in abstracts....the governing principle is what pleases the
>photographer....In general I agree with that philosophy, but it has been
>my experience that when the filtration is "wrong", the print takes on
>an overall color caste, which has the side effect of lowering the contrast
>which in turn would lower the "punch" of even abstract subjects....In other
>words, there is at least some reason for seeking accurate filtration for
>even photo abstrations....Others observations?
>
Ed,

Overall I think you answered your own question, but it really is subject
dependent.  I just wanted to comment on a particular image which worked out
well for me.  If you ever have taken pictures of frost on a window you may
have had my experience.  The window image always looks better than the
print.  In this type of image filtration helps alot.  Also, if you have
access to digital image processing you can really make some incredible
images.  For my example,  by adding color to the swirling frost patterns
it made the image take on the appearance of "transparent feathers".  This
is sort of hard to explain in words,  but everyone who looks
at the image immediately asks where I found those types of "feathers".
As far as contrast,  that can be both good and bad.  I can think of 
several abstract scenes where low contrast helped.  Someone was mentioning
Ghost images before,  I think a "ghost" appears best if it is low-contrast
with a high-constast background.  Once again scene dependent.

Disclaimer:  opinions are just my own.
See Ya ...
WMB



--
***  William M Barnick ** Eastman Kodak ** barnick@Kodak.COM ******************
***  Electronic Imaging Platform Center * Color Scanning Systems Lab          *
***  B/65-2 D/733 mc01804   Rochester NY   14650-1804                         *
**************************** (716) 477-3638 ***********************************
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: B/W sharp nature shots in winter
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:26:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsm.1992Sep29.192658.20055
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <Bv3qw1.H8K@hplabs.hpl.hp.com>, hintzman@hpljah.hpl.hp.com (Jeff Hintzman) writes:
> In article <1992Sep24.190223.24338@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
> |> The effects of diffraction can be calculated quite easily. For a VERY ROUGH
> |> rule of thumb, resolution will be limited to ABOUT 1500/f-stop lp/mm. Thus
> |> at f11 you can't get more than 136 lp/mm and at f16 yo are limited to 94 lp/mm.
> |> Then you take into account the resolution of the film which probably drops
> |> these numbers by a factor of two (assuming about 125 lp/mm for the film).
> |> Since the eye only resolves about 10 lp/mm, contact prints taken at f64
> |> (24 lp/mm) will appear sharp to the eye. If you are going to enlarge then
> |> that factor has to be taken into account. A 3x enlargement from a 24 lp/mm
> |> negative will give 8 lp/mm (at best) in the print. More enlagement than this
> |> and things will begin to look soft. Thus the f-stop at which diffraction
> |> becomes important depends on how much enlarging you will be doing. f11 isn't
> |> too bad at 35mm, but if you have an 18x24 camera f64 is just fine!
> 
> Does this (approximate) rule of 1500/f-stop hold for all focal lengths?
> If I had an 18x24(inch) camera, for example, my "normal" lens would be
> about 730mm.  At f/64 my aperture would be 11.4mm (as opposed to about
> 3mm in diameter for a 50mm lens at f/16.)  Is the sharpness of the long
> lens really limited by diffraction at this point?  I realize you
> (hopefully) won't be enlarging this image, but 1500/64=23 lp/mm,
> which is good but not mind-blowing considering the size of the camera.
> -- 

Yes, the approximation holds for ALL focal lengths. The only lens parameter
which matters is the f-stop. The angular resolution of a large diameter
lens is higher than that of a small diameter lens, but when you factor in the
focal length of the lens and the resultant scale in the final image it is
only the ratio of the lens diameter to focal length (= f-stop) which matters.
If you use the Rayleigh criterion for resolution then you get something like
resolution = 1800/f-stop, but that is probably too severe, and 1500 (or even
1200) may be a better number when trying to visually observe lp/mm on a
photographic image. By the way, the sharpness (resolving power) of ALL lenses
(no matter how big) is ultimately limited by diffraction. Diffraction is not
limiting only in lenses where other aberations still dominate.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 14:57:51 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Subject: Photography noise (Re: Leica, why so high?)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Keywords: 

A discussion of the quietness of Leica cameras, lead to 35mm rangefinder
cameras or the 60s and 70s, which lead to my comment:

|>View camera shutters are, of course, also quiet.  Why disturb the
|>beautiful quiet of the forest with an obnoxious <clunk> <whirrrrrrrr>
|>when you can have a mere <tick> instead?

And hasker@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Hasker) responded:

|Preceded and followed, of course, by the noise of setting up a tripod, cursing
|as you try to get everything in focus, cursing again when you bang the
|film-holder against the camera and have to refocus, and screams of agony when
|the light changes or the wind starts to blow just when you have everything
|ready to go. :-)

Oh, THOSE noises.  Well, they don't count. ;^)

I bet you're a blast on the golf course! ;^)

(And yes, I noticed the smiley.)

Geoff ``Shucks, I don't even scream or swear when shooting in the low
100s in golf'' Allen

-- 
Geoff Allen          \ It's an art, a craft, a science and, perhaps most of
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \ all, a damnable obsession.  But a most fulfilling one.
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \      -- Barry Sherman on photography
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rkatos@hpunila.MSR.HP.COM (Ray Katos)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: invisible flash?
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:38:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Sales, Naperville IL

>/ hpunila:rec.photo / smustopo@nyx.cs.du.edu (sofjan mustopoh) / 10:53 pm  Oct  2, 1992 /
>In article <1992Oct02.054708.17717@microsoft.com> peterwu@microsoft.com (
>eter Wu) writes:
>>Is it possible to use infrared flash and a correponding film such that t
>e
>>resulting picture looks almost like it was shot with normal flash on
>>normal film?
>>
>>This would be of great use when shooting in no-flash zones (e.g. wedding
>>ceremony, opera) and when fine gain (low speed film) is desirable.
>
>
>It will be the strangest wedding photo ever come out.
>   i might try. but don't think the bride and groom will pay for
> it.
>
>
>Muskie
>
>----------
Buy a roll of kodak infra-red.  It says to use a wratten 87 filter over the
flash..inhibits all visible light. Further, it tells of the probabilistic
nature of infra-red: light meters for photography are not calibrated for
infra-red.  Go run some experiments and let us know!
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: erikstad@sdl.egr.uh.edu (  Erikstad. Stein Ove)
Subject: Slide Duplicator and AF-SLRs/Minolta 7xi
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:10:25 GMT

Hei!!

I have a problem I wonder someone can help me with.

I have just bought a slide duplicator for my Minolta 7xi.  I also got the  
adaptorring, and everything seems to fit correctly.

However, with the slide duplicator on, the shutter release refuses to  
react, even in manual exposure/manual focus mode.  Is this because the  
camera can't "find" the aperture on the lens?  

Somebody out there having experienced the same problem, and/or knows some  
remedies??  Help would be appreciated.

Stein Ove Erikstad, University of Houston, 10/4/92
(erikstad@tree.egr.uh.edu)
From: paulf@tiamat.hacks.arizona.edu (Paul Frankenstein, Bs.D.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Where to develop films with flash-off pictures?
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:47:04 GMT
Reply-To: paulf@tiamat.hacks.arizona.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: x=x^2+C
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-a4

In article <1992Sep28.165934.1006@leland.Stanford.EDU>, jerzy@leland.Stanford.EDU (J. Czaplicki) writes...
> 
>Hello,
> 
>I have films with some of the pictures taken in museums
>where, by definition, flashlight was always off. Standard
>(1-hour) developing usually causes those pictures to be
>yellowish as compared with the others, taken with flash on
>and my camera manual says it doesn't have to be so!

What is happening is that tungsten light (light bulbs) is rather yellow
compared to the light coming from your flash. Since the film you are using 
`sees' the flash as white light, it will also `see' light in the museums
as yellow. There are two things you can do to prevent this from happening
in the future:

1) Use filters designed to correct this problem for normal film. I don't have
the proper numbers with me now, but any photo store should be able to help
you with that. The advantage is that you can use the same roll of film, inside
and out. The disadvantage is that the filters effectivly take away 1-2 stops 
of light, requiring longer exposures.

2) Use film designed to `see' tungsten light as white. These tend to be 
unavailable at the local drugstore; again, see a photo store about them. The
advantage is that you don't have to give up 1-2 stops of light; the
disadvantage is that you shouldn't use them with a flash or in daylight.

>Could anyone recommend some place where they would do it
>correctly ?

Just go back and tell them you want those negatives printed with the proper
filtration for tungsten lighting.

>Any hints appreciated (particularly for locations in the
>Bay Area, but not necessarily only there).
> 
>Thanks in advance,
>Jerzy.

-----
paulf@hacks.arizona.edu
paulf%hacks.decnet@telcom.arizona.edu
To sit in solitude, to think in solitude with only the music of the stream and
the cedar to break the flow of silence, here lies the value of wilderness.
						-- John Muir
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: smustopo@nyx.cs.du.edu (sofjan mustopoh)
Subject: Re: LINEAR/CIRCULAR POLARISERS ON AF CAMERAS ??
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: FILTERS, AF CAMERAS
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 04:00:11 GMT


 Stuff about  Linear and circular polarizer.

    Use Circular . If you don't you might get wrong exposure
 i know mine do(8000i). 
    I don't remember th exact reason. but it is about the 
 exposure sensor having a polarizer too. may be some one can clear 
 this up.

   No harm done to your camera.Only pride when you get the underexpose
 picture.

  Muskie

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: illidge@bcarh758.BNR.CA (Ed Illidge)
Subject: Macro Lens Opinions
Reply-To: illidge@bcarh758.BNR.CA (Ed Illidge)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 11:55:28 GMT

I am interested in getting an AF Nikon Macro Lens.  The one that I have
my eye on is the 105/2.8.  The Nikon handbook says that although this
is an excellent lens, it is not flat field. 
 
  What exactly does this mean?
  Has anyone who owns the lens found this to be a big problem?
  Should I go for the 60mm instead?

I primarily want the lens for, surprise surprise, macro work.  I like
that both of these lenses will go to 1:1 without tubes.  I would also
like the 105 since I figure that I could probably get away with it as
a protrait lens also.  Is this a reasonable assumption?

Any comments and opinions are greatly appreciated as always.

----
Ed Illidge       | Opinions expressed are my own. | Bell Northern Research
illidge@bnr.ca   | ESN: 395 2597                  | P.O. Box 3511, Station C
Ph: 613 765 2597 | Fax:613 765 4008               | Ottawa, ON. CANADA K1Y 4H7
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dp54@mc4adm.UWaterloo.ca (Rob Silcher)
Subject: Ektapress 1600
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:15:46 GMT

I decided to give Extapress 1600 a try at a wedding. I shot the entire
roll in the church. I thought I'd give it a try so I wouldn't need to use
a flash. I've never used anything higher than 400 so this was a new 
experience for me.

I just got the pictures back today. Now I know that I should be expecting
lots of grain so that's not a problem. However I didn't expect the colors
to be so awful. All the pictures seem washed out in a pale yellowish color.

My questions are - is this to be expected and if not could the problem be
in printing. Right now I intend to go back and complain about the colors.
How should I plead my case? BTW it was processed using Kodak Color Watch.

Thanks in advance for any advise,

Rob dp54@mc4adm.UWaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale
From: robbins@zonev.enet.dec.com (Jeff Robbins)
Subject: --< Canon F1n, lenses, flash, Quantum batt. for sale >--
Reply-To: robbins@zonev.enet.dec.com (Jeff Robbins)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:10:28 GMT


I've got the following Canon camera equipment for sale.  Everything is
in top-notch condition, most in the original boxes. All equipment is
located in Colorado Springs.  Call (719) 592-4880 or send e-mail to
robbins@aztech.enet.dec.com for more information.

- Jeff

    Canon F1n with AE finder					$600
	Canon's top pro non-AF camera.  New style. Current
	B&H price $1000. Built like a tank.  This one is in
	excellent condition with the manual and in the box.
	The AE finder allows the camera to operate in
	either full manual (w/real nice match needle metering)
	or aperature priority automatic.  All information
	is displayed in the viewfinder regardless of lens.
	Lighted displays can be switched on for use in
	dim situations.

    Eye level finder FN, mint condition				 $50
	Smaller finder with match needle metering.
	Illuminated f-stop scale, shutter speed, etc.
	This is the standard finder for the F1n.

    All of these lenses have 52mm front threads:

    Canon 24/2.8 FD, like new, in box				$185

    Canon 35/2.0 FD, like new, in box				$190

    Canon 50/1.4 FD, mint condition				 $70

    Canon 85/1.8 FD (w/hood), like new, in box			$175
	This is a great portrait lens.  No longer made in
	this focal length and speed.  

    Canon 135/2.8 FD (w/hood), like new, in box			$150

    Canon 299T flash GN 131, with manual, mint			 $75

    Quantum Battery 1, with GC-BC module for 299T, manuals, mint $75
From: yen@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Tony Yen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: How do you pronounce Leica?
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:51:16 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Sep30.134224.3731@news.columbia.edu> fag2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Farul A Ghazali) writes:
>
>Like the subject line says, how do you pronounce Leica? Is is 'lay
>car' or 'lee car' or what? I'm having a bet with my friend and we need
>some expert advice to settle this thing.
>

We pronounce Leica as 'lie' (as to cheat) 'ca' (as in mica). Originally
when Leica cameras were made by Ernst Leitz in Wetzler, Germany, Leica
stood for Leitz Camera. Is was later acquired by a Swiss company called
Wild. Thereafter the combined company called itself Wild Leitz.
Nowadays, Wild Leitz, Cambridge Instruments (England), Reichert (Austria),
Bosch & Lomb (U.S.A.) are all parts of a multinational company. Guess
what the company name is? It is called 'Leica' and it uses the old Leica
camera logo.

Tony Yen
From: allana@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Allan Armstrong)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Color Fade using Sigma Lense and Sky filter.
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:39:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpmwnpd2.12430075
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)

dinesh@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com (Dinesh Jalisatgi) writes:

> I just got developed a Ektar 100 using Minolta 3xi and Sigma 70-210(UC) with
> sky1-A filter and some photographs were shot with Minolta 28-80 with Haze1 and
> circular Polarizer. I notice that the photographs that were shot with Sigma
> have a faded color ( All the photographs were shot in Daylight). The color
> fade is noticeable. The photgraphs shot with Minolta Zoom are okay. 
> The film was developed at the store using Kodak Color Watch System. 
> Is this happening because of Filter. Should I use a Circular Polarizer with 
> the Sky1-A filter.

If you used a polarizer on the 28-80 zoom lens and rotated it
appropriately, you would get nicely saturated colors. All the books say
that the polarizer is used to deepen the blue skies, but you'll find
that it also intensifies other colors such as the greens in grasses and
the brilliant oranges in autumn leaves. In fact, when I rotate the
polarizer to get the best effect, I often observe the foliage, not the
sky. If you didn't use the polarizer on your 70-210 zoom, then these
prints will have less color saturation.

Some other techniques you can use to improve color saturation:

Always shoot with the sun to your back. Even if you don't see glare,
choosing the correct angle will make a big difference in your colors.

If you do shoot toward the sun, make sure no sunlight falls on the front
element of your lens. Set the camera up for the shot on a tripod, walk
around and inspect the front element. If light is falling on it, you
need to add a hood, or hold your hat over the lens to provide shade.

Choose film that has good color saturation. Ektar is great film for
sharpness, but Gold 100 has far better color saturation, and Fuji 100 is
slightly better than Gold 100.

Use slide film. You will always get better color saturation with
transparencies. Also, you'll be able to control your exposure and color
balance more accurately. Some recommended slide films are Fujichrome
100, Fujichrome 50, Fujichrome 50 Velvia, Kodachrome 64, and Kodachrome
25. I tend to prefer the Fujichromes.

A side note: You may not be aware that your 1A (skylight) filter affects
color balance. It has a very subtle pinkish hue. It will help warm up
your photographs in overcast weather or when you are deep in a pine
forest. Many photographers, though, prefer the 81 A, B, C series for
warming as they have more of a brown-orange hue.

Allan
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ADMSRUBN@VM.UWP.EDU
Subject: SB-16A FOR SALE
Organization: UW-Parkside
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:22:27 GMT

 
I have a like-new SB-16A for an F3 that I would like to sell.  I'll also
include the LumiQuest reflector I have for it, plus a Nikon cable that allows
you to use the flash off the camera.  All this, plus the original SB-16a
packaging, for only $155.  Contact me at 414-595-2576 or at the following
internet address:  ADMSRUBN@VM.UWP.EDU
 
Thanks.
From: wert@yorktown.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Jerry Van Wert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Fuji & Kodak slide differences
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:49:15 GMT
Distribution: world
In-reply-to: wert@yorktown.itd.nrl.navy.mil's message of 28 Sep 92 18:43:02 GMT


Thanks for the replies, I love this group.... anyway.. summaries....


>From:    ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)

>In LA Kodalux is excellent.

>Kodak Photo CD is very low quality, but it may be an option with
>good long-term survival.

Is this LA place the A&I mentioned below?
Photo CD? huh?


>From:    dporter@altair.csustan.edu (Darren Porter)

>The variable quality of Kodalux processing is precisely the reason I switched
>to Fujichrome.  I get better processing with Fujichrome 100 at Costco ( a
>warehouse discount store ) for $2.69 than I got from Kodalux at ~$6.00

>I was hearing figures around 35 years for E6 films.  I could be wrong though.

35 jives with some of the Ektachrome I've seen, for whatever that's worth.


>From:    "Philip Greenspun" <philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

>A&I in LA has the best K-14 process in the country.

Anyone have more info on these people?  I called information and they 
didn't find "A&I".  

>From:    jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)

>>time (Ektachromes shifting towards blue)... I'd like to know if
>>this stability problem is a characteristic of E-6 or just the
>>Ektachrome line.

>E6, but the degree varies.  It's due to more chemical layers being
>used in E6 film, versus more chemical baths in K14 film.  There are
>residual chemicals in E6 that degrade the life.  Kodachrome is rated
>at better than a century dark storage, E6 films at best half that.
>Light storage (projecter life) is just the reverse --- E6 is more
>stable under bright light.  Not a problem for most, unless you're
>in the AV business.


>From:    reed%nastar.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu (Reed Wilson)

>Rumor had it years ago that Kodak's Fair Lawn (NJ) lab was their
>"best", so that's where I always send my film.

>By the way, I just shot my first roll of Kodachrome 200 and was
>pleasantly surprised at the sharpness and color.  Shot a mixed
>bag of subjects from flowers at the National Botanical Gardens
>(DC), to some people shots, to a bunch of outdoor shots in DC
>and at the Manassas battlefield - all came out pretty well.

>Have you shot much K-200?  I'd be interested in your opinion.

I sortof knew that it existed but I don't think I've ever come
across it in the stores....  If I'm shooting color it I tend to
crave the sharp slow chromes.  Mostly I do B&W. (ok and an occasional
roll of color prints for the non photographer weenies who want to
see where I went on my vacation)


So I would really like to try out this A&I place and then I'll probably
use the last few of my mailers on Fair Lawn NJ Qualex.  For the record,
I've been using the Kodalux in MD.


Thank you very much,

Jerry Van Wert
wert@itd.nrl.navy.mil