HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: reed@nastar.uucp (Reed Wilson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Processing NISMLO 3-D rolls
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:07:25 GMT
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.

In article <1992Oct15.133035.12631@crash> jgallego@crash.cts.com (Jose Gallego) writes:
>HI!
>or actually... HELP!
>
>I purchase a NIMSLO 3-D camera several years ago.  I used to send my rolls
>to be develop to:
>
>NIMSLO PROFESSIONAL PROCESSING
>PO BOX 105099
>ATLANTA, GA 30348
>
>Apparently the are not at this address anymore.  Do any of you know where
>can I find somebody to processing my film?
>
>Are there any 3-D photo news here?
>
>I would appreciate ANY information.
>
>Thanks,
>Jose~

I work next door to the LENTEC Corporation, and believe they are handling
the 3-D printing for NIMSLO (and perhaps others?).  One of their employees
stopped by our office one day and showed us several 3-D prints they made,
4x6 size if I remember correctly.

Their phone number is 404-497-0727.  They are located in Duluth, GA, just
up the road from Atlanta.

Regards,

-- 

reed%nastar.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu
Reed C. Wilson
Digital Transmission Systems
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,alt.graphics.pixutils
From: pieter@prpa.philips.com (Pieter van der Meulen)
Subject: Photo_CD 4Base Sample [owl-face.jpg]
Keywords: Photo_CD, CD-ROM, JPEG
Organization: Philips Research Palo Alto
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:09:32 GMT

In alt.binaries.pictures.misc I have posted the second image
of my first Photo_CD named "owl-face.jpg" (3-parts).
It's taken from the second highest resolution available
(1536x1024) and is clipped to SUN screen size: 1152x900.
Medium compressed with JPEG (Q=75), the result is almost
indistinguishable from the original.

This is the second and last referral/cross-post I will do
in these newsgroups about posting photo_cd material, since
I'm sure it served it's purpose by now (I got more than enough
enthousiastic responses to my account): Photo_CD is here....

Pieter.
 
------------------------------------------------------
Picture : Horned Owl - July 1990
Camera  : Canon A-1
Lens    : Canon FD35-70 (@ 70 mm)
Film    : Ektachrome, 100 ASA
Exposure: ?
Scan    : by Kodalux @ $1.49/slide to Photo_CD
CD-ROM  : Sun CD-ROM (411), as High Sierra File System
Software: Pbmplus & Independent JPEG group's JFIF
Platform: Sun SPARC2 with 24-bit display (1152x900)
------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Pieter S. van der Meulen	pieter@prpa.philips.com
Philips Research Palo Alto
4005 Miranda Avenue #175
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: young@saturn.sdsu.edu (Alan Young)
Subject: Color Processor/Enlarger : FOR SALE
Originator: young@saturn.sdsu.edu
Keywords: Durst RCP 20/Beseler 67S
Organization: San Diego State University, Math Dept.
Distribution: sdnet
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:40:25 GMT

I have the following photo developing equipment for sale:

1. Durst RCP 20
   Automatic Color Processor

2. Beseler 67S Dichro Colorhead

I don't know the exact value of these things (new) so that I can get
an idea of how much I can expect to get for them.
I will call around and get some numbers and will accept any reasonable
offers.

These were a gift from my brother when he was through experimenting with
photo developing. They work and work good, I can guarantee that. I've just
never used them because I don't have much time for a hobby right now.

Please send any offers or inquiries to:
young@saturn.sdsu.edu

Alan


-- 
> Alan B. Young		         |
> Computer Science Dept.         |
> San Diego State University     | 
> Internet: young@saturn.sdsu.edu|
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Safelight for TMAX film
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:41:07 GMT

In article <rodney.718743246@kitscoty>, rodney@cs.UAlberta.CA (Rodney Gitzel) writes:
> Someone told me once that there is a safelight filter
>  that can be used during the development of TMAX film.
>  He said it was green, but couldn't remember the exact
>  colour number.
> 
> Does anyone know about this?  I would like to use a safelight
>  in some experiments with extreme push-processing.

A number 3. It's *DARK* green. Like about 1.5% transmition at 500-530nM.
You can use it for about 2 sec.

If you need to develop by inspection, better to de-sensitize the film first.
See 'Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques, v12 #3 May/June91 pp59-62'
You will probably need to do a fair bit of testing, as the use of these
with Tmax et al is virtualy 0! Please post your rsults if you go this route.
What do you mean by "extreme" BTW?

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Medium Format Slide Projectors/Views
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:22:42 GMT


I`ve been shooting 6x7 transparencies and am sick of
having to look at them on a light table.  Medium format
projectors cost upwards of $700 (why am I not surprised?)
which is just too much money.

It seems like it shouldn't be too hard to hack together
a simple projection system - does anyone have any 
information/plans/suggestions about how I could 
do this?

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: drw41888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Wiltz)
Subject: Looking for toner recipes
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:49:56 GMT

Hail netters!

I'm looking for any recipes you might have for toning 
b&w prints.  Specifically, I'm looking for homemade
instructions for toning the prints red, green, etc.

E-mail or post, I don't care.  I'll post a summary
if there are enough interested parties.

Thanks
-Dave
-- 
David Wiltz                                 wiltz@after.math.uiuc.edu
Calculus&Mathematica Development Team
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  NeXT Mail always welcome!
-Doing business with the government is a lot like playing poker with God-
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: news@walter.bellcore.com
Subject: Re: Opinions on the Canon EF 28mm.
Reply-To: jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 20:56:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.215741.5086@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis) writes:
>
>As fixed focal length lenses go, in my opinion the EF 28mm is not
>impressive.  I also have the 28-80/3.5-5.6 USM and the fixed 28mm is
>better than the zoom, but I don't doubt that the 28-80L zoom is
>sharper.
>
I am interested to know what your "opinion" is based upon. 

I tested out the 28 mm lens, I found that the resolution was greater
than 100 l/mm in the center for apertures between 4 and 11. The edges 
also had a respectable 63+ l/mm. This is significantly better than the 
28-80 USM (none-L).  I don't know how the 28-80 L performs. But I doubt
if it would be significantly better. 

>The fixed 28mm is inexpensive, and a pretty good buy.  However, the
>(more expensive) fixed 24mm and 35mm are definitely better.  I imagine
>the 20mm is also quite nice, but have only used the manual focus
>version, the FD 20/2.8, which is excellent.
>--
Hmmm...Again, I would like to know the basis of 24 mm and 35 mm lenses
"definitely better" than the 28 mm lens. 

I also happen to have the 24 mm lens. It is certainly much more expensive
and more complex (construction wise) than the 28 mm, but its resolution
is not as good, at least for the samples that I have.

The price of a lens doesn't necessarily reflects the quality of the lens.
It only reflects the production costs (and sometimes, demand). The 24 mm lens
probably costs more to product due to its difficulty in design and its
relatively small production volume. The 35 mm lens having a maximum aperture
of 2 instead of 2.8 may explain why it costs more. But by not mean should
the price be taken as a measure for lens quality.

C. Jason Chen 
jchen@wind.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hasker@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Hasker)
Subject: Re: Anyone know anything about Minolta X-700?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:07:11 GMT

bson@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Jan Brittenson) writes:

>In article <Bvv9y2.A0o@news.cso.uiuc.edu> bsn30247@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard) writes:
>
> > I am currently shopping for an SLR and am very interested in Minolta
> > X700. Does any of you have any opinions on this camera?  Is it
> > reliable, are there any serious drawbacks which I should know before I
> > invest in it??
>
> It's not a tank, so don't treat it like one.

But it's certainly not any more fragile than any of the other modern
SLR's in it's price class.

>   Oh, another problem I've had is that the ones I've had have tended
>to tell you that they're out of batteries by getting the mirror stuck
>or otherwise malfunctioning, like completely bogus meter readings.

Mine tells me it's low by not turning on the meter when I touch the button.
I've never had problems with stuck mirrors and the like (though _twice_
I've changed batteries because I thought they were dead when the camera
was just turned off--but that's not the cameras fault!)

>It is also somewhat hard to activate the meter with a cable release
>without accidentally tripping the shutter.

If you want to turn on the meter without touching the release, you can
press down on the self-timer button.

Rob
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: archive available
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:20:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.003042.305@nmsu.edu>, amolitor@nmsu.edu (Andrew Molitor) writes:
...
> (more or less) samples, and the FAQ sheet. If you have anything you'd
> like to submit, send it to me, amolitor@nmsu.edu (not at moink, moink
...
> 	Both suggestions for things to find, and actual things to archive
> are gratefully accepted. Not, alas, necessarily handled *rapidly*, but
> as soon as possible..
> 
I have posted a few things that I considered [in]frequently asked question
stuff. I stuck "FAQ" in the Subject: line so they could be found quickly
in this case... I can't mail stuff, only post or receive mail :-( so
you will have to snarf it as it goes past...

Thanks from all, an archive for rec.photo is long overdue.

~Paul
From: daver@felix.filenet.com (Dave Richards)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: QUESTION ABOUT CRI RATING
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:35:02 GMT
Reply-To: daver@fritz.filenet.com (Dave Richards)
Organization: Costa Mesa, CA

In article <168809538.MSPERKO@kentvm.kent.edu> MSPERKO@kentvm.kent.edu (Mike Sperko) writes:
>I am thinking of buying a larger light box and was wondering what the CRI
>rating means.  Does anybody have the answer?

CRI stands for Color Rendering Index.  It and the color temperature determine
the quality of the light source.  The color temperature is a measure of where
the average of radiation is spectrum-wise, and the CRI is a measure of how
uniform the distribution of light is across the visible spectrum.  For ex-
ample, you could make a "white" light by combining pure blue and yellow lamps,
and even adjust them to get a color temperature very close to daylight.  But
the CRI would be pretty bad because the spectrum would have a big gap in it.
Looking at various-colored objects under such a light could give you a dis-
torted impression of their color.  

For a light box it's not real critical.  Incandescant lamps have a fairly even
spectral output, so the CRI is probably OK for looking at pictures.  Cheap
fluorescent tubes may be better from the standpoint of color temperature, but
are worse in the CRI department.  But most of them put out a large enough por-
tion of the spectrum that your eye can adapt to it and accept it as "white".
The worst kind of lights as far as CRI are mercury and sodium vapor.  I'm
sure you've noticed how different some colors look under these kind of
streetlamps.  But you wouldn't use that kind of light in a light box anyway.
If you're concerned about it, get a lamp that has a CRI of 90 or higher (I
think 100 is "perfect".)

There are several companies that manufacture "natural" daylight fluorescent
tubes.  "Vitalite" by Durotest is one example.  I think these have a CRI of
about 95.  They're available at professional lighting supply places.  Also
at pet stores and aquarium dealers (supposed to be a healthier artificial
light for animals).  They also cost 3 or 4 times as much as standard tubes.

Dave
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 8x10, Christopher Burkett, light sources
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:09:20 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <Bw13p3.6o2@news.orst.edu> monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson) writes:

>  Never mind the upcoming layoffs, Barry. Go ahead, buy an 8x10
>  system. You should be able to get started with used equipment for
>  under a thousand. And I'll bet that you already own a lens or two
>  that can cover 8x10. Of course, film holders will cost nearly $50
>  each - and they won't be nice, compact mido's. But after shopping
>  for enlargers, you may want to consider buying a 20x24 camera
>  and just sticking to contact prints. :-)

They don't make Velvia in 20x24 ;-).

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs)
Subject: Re: AGFA, Fuji, Kodak or ?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:12:55 GMT

In article <8OCT199200154057@vms1.iscs.nus.sg> nuscss1@vms1.iscs.nus.sg (Vax BULLET-IN-Board SysOps) writes:
>In article <NICHOLS.92Oct6184454@osric.cs.odu.edu>, nichols@osric.cs.odu.edu (teresa nichols) writes...
>> 
>>Dumb question, but are the AGFA films E-6 process?
>
>	agfa print films are C-41, as usual.
>	i guess the slide film should be E-6, just like most other slide films.
>>Teresa

The Agfa films are C-41 and E-6 now, but it wasn't always so.  My earliest
experience with Agfachrome was in 1963.  The film was sold with a prepaid
processing envelope in the box, and it was sent to New Jersey (I think).  Agfa
films were advertised as having a "softer" look, ideal for people (very
different from the saturated, bright colors of Fuji and Kodak.)  I remember
shooting some Agfachrome in Canyonlands National Park in the mid 1970's;
wrong film for the locale, very disappointing.  

Maybe a little history is in order.  Prior to the invention of Kodachrome in
the late 1930's, there wasn't any practical color film for the amateur.  During
this same time, the Agfa scientists were developing the "chromogenic" color
process, where the dyes are formed IN the film rather than being put in the
film during development (Kodachrome).  At the close of World War II, the Agfa
patents were siezed as war reparations and that technology became public.
Then followed Kodacolor, Ektachrome, Anscochrome and many others.

By the late 1970's and early 1980's, most of the color films in the non-
communist countries had become compatible with the Kodak standards, (E-4,
E-6, C-22, C-41) except for Agfa.  The difference in the materials was in
the way the dye molecules were anchored in the emulsion, requiring a different
developing agent.  Other than that, the processes were generally similar in
concept.

Agfa held out, using their process, until the early 1980's, when they finally
decided to jump on the de-facto E-6/C-41 bandwagon, and they came out with a
family of compatible films.  I believe that their old processes are "dead", 
as no films are being made for them any more.  I speculate that it was the
rise of the fast minilabs which forced them to change.  Back then, if you
had the choice of shooting Kodachrome or Agfachrome, and they both had to
be sent to another state with a 2-week turnaround, where they went wouldn't
be an issue.  But with 1-hour print processing and same day slide service,
most people wouldn't endure a 2-week wait at the mailbox.

I tried some E-6 Agfachrome about 1985, but I was not impressed.  I had 
shot identical scenes on Fujichrome and Kodachrome, and Agfa slides were
greenish.  Of course, they have gone thru several iterations of film types
since then, and I can't comment on their present films.  If I didn't like
Fujichrome RDP and Velvia so much, I might be tempted to try them. :-)

Ron Speirs, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm)
Subject: Recycling Polaroid cartridges
Organization: Ocean Sciences Centre
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:25:31 GMT

	After shooting to packs of Polaroid 667 today, I realized that
	the holders, which get tossed out, are completely recyclable. 
	They endure NO wear, and as good as when they left the factory
	after you are through with them.  Given that these packs are
	relatively expensive per picture ( > $1 )  perhaps Polaroid
	should offer incentives for returning them, and part of the price
	could be a deposit on the cartridge, just like when you buy
	beer!  Polaroid dealers could act as in-betweens, as I personally
	would never shoot enough of this stuff to warrant mailing costs,
	but if the dealer handled averybody's used cartridges . . . 

	Any comments, or experience on this ?



-- 
  Craig Hamm, Memorial University, | He's big, he's bad, and he's mad. If the
  Newfoundland,              ______| odds are stacked against you...if you 
  DoD #1500,                / have nowhere left to turn...he's your last
  1981 Maxim 650            | resort. A berserk one-man juggernaut of death
  __________________________| on the trail to hell and back. -The Liquidizer
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Macbeth Color Chart
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:23:50 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


Dave Brower writes:

> Where does one get a Macbeth color chart, and how much do they cost?

I bought mine locally, and they are currently selling for $36.95.


eugene
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: seong@tellabs.com (Scott S. Seong)
Subject: Sigma 20-70mm AI Power Zoom Lens Question
Organization: Tellabs, Lisle,IL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:56:24 GMT


I just bought a Minolta 7xi and Sigma 20-70mm AI zoom lens.  Initially,
I wanted Maxxum 20-80mm f/4.0-5.6 ($150) but the salesman recommend me a
Sigma 20-70mm f/3.5-4.0 ($200) over Maxxum.  I choose a Sigma thinking
that extra f-stop would help.

Here is my question:

1)  Did I make a right decision in choosing lens as above?

The maximum shutter speed I can get with the Sigma lens is 1/125 for 
Shutter-Priority mode and 200 for Aperture-Priority/Manual mode.
2)  Is this something everyone should expect with a zoom lens?

I think Sigma manual is too short and very poorly written. It even contains
spelling error. How can I trust a quality of this lens when a company
releases a product without spelling check.
3)  Is it better off to return Sigma lens for Maxxum?  ( I have 15 days to
    make a decision)
 
I am a newcomer to photography world so please explain in detail I might not
understand the technical terms.

Scott Seong ( seong@tellabs.com )
-- 
Scott Seong			      |Many men go fishing all of their lives
Email->  seong@tellabs.com	      |without knowing that it is not fish they
         uunet!tellab5!seong	      |are after.        -- Henry David Thoreau

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
Subject: Re: U.K. (over)Pricing !
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:50:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.121201.9771@news.ysu.edu>, ag544@yfn.ysu.edu (Erl R. Johnston) writes:
> 
>    Having recently purchased a Canon EOS 1000FN for 300 pounds
> I have been led to believe that the same camera is available
> in other , non-european, countries for a significantly 
> smaller amount, the same being true for EF lenses.
>    Are we in the U.K. being held to ransom by the importers ???
> Opinions Welcome !

	From: Dr. Strabismus, formerly of Weston-Super-Mare,and elsewhere. 
	In a word, yes. (or no).

	While it is true that virtually everything photographic in the U.K. 
is more expensive than the U.S.A., much of the blame can be placed on the 
doorstep of the chancellor of the exchequer, or V.A.T.man. In fact, if you 
ever compare general prices of the midwest U.S.of A. to G.B., you will find 
that the exchange rate of one pound sterling = 1.70 US$ is quite the 
fiction when it comes to buying goods and services. The heavy taxation 
which you experience pays for the N.H.S. and British Railways, and the 
Queen ( Chuck & Di, Fergie etc.). Lack of foresight in Her Majesty's 
Government led to the decline of British camera manufacturers such as Reid
& Sigrist, Wray, MPP and Corfield. (Do I sound cynical? Heavens No!)
Part of the reason cameras in NYC are theoretically cheaper is the pirahna-
like competition to turn the buck.
	Second part (no) Canon et. al charge what the market will bear.
I always used to buy my photo equip at Tecno (on the Euston Road or 
Queensway in Birmingham).
	 If you plan a trip to the U.S.of A., beware the tourist traps
(including NYC retail stores and especially "Duty free" stores) because
  you will surely pay dearly for equipment there.

		T.T.F.N.  Dr. Strabismus
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rrw@elden.cse.nau.edu (Bob Wier)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Mail Order Darkroom Supplies?
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:24:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ
Originator: rrw@elden.cse.nau.edu

I wonder if anyone can recommend a good mail order place
for darkroom supplies.  I've check the "customer satisfaction"
survey and everyone seems to like Camera World. However, none
of the ads I've seen from them indicates whether they carry
paper, chemicals, etc.  If not, whom do you like?

Please drop me a line and I'll summarize if I get sufficient
response.

THANKS

 - Bob Wier

  ---------- insert favorite standard disclaimers here ----------
                   College of Engineering
      Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff Arizona
  Internet: rrw@naucse.cse.nau.edu | BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | WB5KXH
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Push/Pull Processing (Was "Re: Can I "pull process" a film?") Summary: 
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:43:34 GMT

In article <ldjmeoINNj47@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> sdm@pyramid.Corp.Sun.COM (Scott Mann) writes:
>>
>>You really shouldn't have anything to worry about. WHY? 
>>Color print film such as the one you used, has the tolerance
>>for 2-3 stops under/over, therefore, your lab should have no
>>problems during printing.  I recently shot, in purpose,
>>Kodak 100 at 200 and since this is affect a 1 stop over, the
>>prints came out great. Your 1 stop under, should not adversely 
>>affect your pictures, if fact, they "might" be better. :-)
>>
>>-- 
>
>I often shoot Ektar 100 at ISO 200.  I have heard that push
>processing is unnecessary, which seems to be what you are
>saying here.  Correct?  If so, what does the lab do when
>they push-process (some labs charge extra for this)?
>
>Is there a good reference on this subject?
>
>Thanks!
>
>--
>
>
>...Scott

I would ask for push/pull when your request is beyond the
plus/minus capacity of the said film. E.g., shooting ASA 100
at ASA 1000 would be a good candidate. Like I said, to shoot
ASA 100 at ASA 200, IMHO, is not something you would request 
in for pushing.  It is my understanding that shooting slide film 
because of its low tolerance for under/over exposure, are better 
candidates for push/pull processes. I don't have any handy 
reference with me, but it has been written in many photo mags.
If I find a mag. at home, I will be more than glad to send you
a zeroxed copy.
-- 
  ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@sysengr.pacbell.com	--------	
  Let us be thankful for the fools; but for them the rest
  of us could not succeed.  -   Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.photo