HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Film Flatness
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:30:42 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

accwai@math.uwaterloo.ca (Andy Wai) writes:
: And besides, the lens image of a 3D subject is itself 3D.
: The film just cuts a slice though that image.  I wonder how much harm
: a little warble on the film can actually do to the overall sharpness.

A lot.  When I focus the lens, I am picking something specific to focus
on.  The model's eyes, for example.  It is usually very important that
the part of the image I want in focus comes out that way.

Also, for copying 2D images, or photographing scenes that are made up
of far-away objects, the entire image should have a plane of focus matching
the film plane.

-- 
Jay Ts
uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
phone: (813) 979-9169
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mwandel@bnr.ca (Markus Wandel)
Subject: Re: Kodachrome 64
Organization: bnr
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:00:35 GMT

>[Questions about Kodachrome 64]
>
>> I have heard talk of exposing 64 at a different setting, what of this?

Different setting?  I dunno, on my camera the meter is off and I experimented
until I had a setting that seemed right.  I chose one that gives nice colour-
ful slides if exposed JUST SO.  The slightest mistake in the underexposure
direction from there ruins the picture; I end up exposing for the shadows.
Works for me.

>> Are there situations especially unsuited for 64?
>
>In my opinion, spectacular sunsets.

Weird, in my opinion the evening sun, and anything illuminated by it, just
loves K64.  All the pictures I have on K64 that look really cool, that have
that "just a touch better than life" look you normally expect from Velvia,
are evening sun scenes and I have some spectacular sunsets on K64 as well.
No colour fringe problems that a previous poster reported.  Processing by
Kodak Canada in Toronto.

Now, what is REALLY BAD with Kodachrome:  Hazy scenes.  Kodachrome just
doesn't like subtle shades of neutral grey.  A lot of the "haze" ends up
as clear film base or all your darker details go black.  Just like a too-
contrasty B&W negative on a condenser enlarger, the picture is there but
the gray scale is all off.  All tthe "hazy" pictures I've seen on Velvia
were just breathtaking.

>> Are there situations especially ideal for 64?
>
>Absolutely! A redwood forest after a rain. You could just eat the greens
>and browns. Nothing else can touch Kodachrome in this application, IMHO.

Weird again, I've done shadowy forest scenes with sunlight peeking in, and
I didn't like the results at all.  Kodachrome can't cope with the whole
brightness range.

As you can see this matter is very subjective.  I think Kodachrome colour
saturation sucks and Velvia is so spectacular it might become tiresome.
The best colour I've ever seen was on slides my brother took on Agfachrome
bought in Germany.  When he bought some more in Seattle, U.S.  later he
was sorely disappointed; it was more contrasty and looked like a cross
between plain Fujichrome (LOUD) and K64 (contrasty and brown), not like
the German stuff that had that magic "Velvia" look but more muted and
realistic, just perfect.

Flame away.  It's subjective and no film can please everybody.

Markus Wandel
markus@pinetree.org <-- NOT the source of this posting.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: EP-2 or RA-4 in JOBO CPE-2
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:36:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Dec14.131127.22951@tijc02.uucp>, kjf388@tijc02.uucp (Ken Fisher          ) writes:

> Anyway what are current Chemistry recommendations for the smaller Jobo
> home drum processors?  I know RA-4 is supposed to be much faster, and
> that certainly would be welcome, but how does it work in a drum?  

It works very well. I currently use high-temperature RA-4 chemistry in
my CPA-2 processor, but as soon as I've run out of it I'll buy some
of the room-temperature chemistry instead. That way, I don't have to wait
for the chemistry to reach 35C but can use it at 24C instead (still in
the processor, of course). Total processing time is around 2 minutes
(developer, stop bath and bleach fix).

-- 
--------------------- 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: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: RE: I GIVE FILM 'BOUT 7-10 MORE YEARS!!
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:34:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.180726.13072@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman) writes:
...
> No longer true.  Prospero's Books was shot using HDTV recorders.  It was
> transfered to prints for distribution.  There may be others.
> 

Are you sure? As I remember the credits, it was shot on HDTV and film, edited
on hdtv, then the negs cut.

On a side note, in Aug 85 I visited Pinewood studios, north of London as a guest
of the manager. In discussion of the editing suites, I stated that I thought
the rushes would be soon transfered to tape, digital or video, and thes used
to cut the movie and the negs them printed straight to the production masters.
He said that he didn't think so due to cost, and that the producers/editors
would stick with what they knew anyway.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale
From: ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (Eric Chen)
Subject: Leica IIIb+35mm+90mm+etc SOLD for $200
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson SC
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:00:21 GMT

The Leica IIIb (was mistake, I put IIIa on the net), + 35mm
f3.5 Elmar, 90mm f4 Elmar + all accessories has been sold for $200

Thank you for all the replies.

Eric
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Need help getting dark B&W sky
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:21:28 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Dec14.230432.22996@leland.Stanford.EDU> prodger@leland.Stanford.EDU (phillip prodger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.191205.27332@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>In article <180600010@hpcndaw.CND.HP.COM> antonsen@hpcndaw.CND.HP.COM (Tim Antonsen) writes:
>>>The sky in the Sierras is a remarkably deep blue. The sky in Texas is, I'm
>>>sorry to say, not the same. This probably explains your problem. Filters are
>>>unlikely to solve it. You could try infrared film (properly filtered) for
>>>*reeeeealy* black sky, but you probably don't want its other characteristics.
>>
>>In addition, skies everywhere are less blue than they were in Adam's day -
>>especially the last year or so (thanks to aerosols and particulates from
>>Mt. Pinatubo). Try again in a year or two - I think you'll have better results.
>
>That's pretty optimistic...

Not according to my friends at NCAR - at least as far as the Pinatubo effect
is concerned. Of course, skies will *still* be less blue than they were
in Adam's day - and I'm not particularly optimistic about that, either :-(.

Steve
From: philippe@contrast.wlink.nl (Philippe Moroux)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Film writer
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 12:00:58

Hello All!

I am searching information over a "film writer" such as "DUNN FILM WRITER", it
is a device to set the digital image data on to a film (EKTACHROME for
example).
In fact I want to save a beautiful image I made on my computer on an analog
material with a very high quality (original 3000 x 2000 pixels).

Somebody know ?

Philippe.


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: EF 14mm L Not As Good As Sigma 14 mm
Reply-To: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 02:24:38 GMT

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.

Jason Chen
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pdn@fc.hp.com (Paul Nuber)
Subject: Re: White Lightning (How Good?)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:35:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Marc Thompson-Sun-Vienna VA-Systems Engineer (marc@milan.East.Sun.COM) wrote:
: 
: 1) How good are White Lightning units.

I like mine.
 
: 2) What are the true w/s ratings.

I believe the watt-second rating is about half of the model number, so the 
Ultra 600 is 300 watt-seconds.


Paul Nuber
pdn@fc.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Fort Collins, CO
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Bulk loading etc
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:50:57 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

markt@cup.hp.com (Mark Thompson) writes:
: Nobody has said if the scratches are
: base or emultion.  That may help to isolate the problems.  

The scratches I got were on the emulsion side.  This was with color slide
film, so when developed, the scratches were black lines.  Not very easy
to undo.

I really don't see how the Watson loader could put scratches on the
emulsion side.  I have looked it over carefully, and it seems that if
it is going to scratch the film, it will scratch the back rather than
the emulsion.  But the facts are overwhelming:

	1. I was using *new* reloadable cassettes.
	2. I split the cassettes evenly between the Watson and Lloyd loaders.
	3. The same camera was used throughout.
	3. No scratches on the rolls loaded with the Lloyd loader;
	   scratches on each of the rolls loaded with the Watson loader.
	4. The scratches from different rolls are the same distance from
	   the edge.  (Very unfortunately, I discarded all the frames that
	   were scratched.  I should have saved a few from each roll, to
	   see if the scratches *exactly* overlapped.  That would have
	   pinned the problem down much better.)

Yesterday I mentioned that perhaps the problem I was having was due to
the larger diameter of the roll of Velvia I had (with a 2" core).  Last
night, I took the Watson loader out, put some old 35mm Kodalith in
it, and wound off a couple of rolls into the same cassettes that the
scratched Velvia was in.  I couldn't see any problems on those rolls.

I'm not sure if I can logically conclude anything from this, but the main
difference seems to be that the Velvia was wound on a 2" core, and the
Kodalith is on a reel (with flanges).  Perhaps the reel keeps the film
in better alignment or something ... ?

-- 
Jay Ts
uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
phone: (813) 979-9169
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Questions on Studio Portrait Photography
Date: 13 Dec 1992 10:51:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Hi:

You didn't mention what type of equipment in what format, so there
is a concern about whether or not you will be able to Polaroid
proof before hand.  This is a concern, especially if you are not
using strobe with modeling lights.

Anyhow, a decent flash meter is your best friend in the studio, so get
a god one the first time and it will pay for itself many times over
in saved film costs.

I have, when necessary, shot portraits with a Metz and a couple of Vivitars
bounced into umbrellas. You don't get a wallop of light to
manipulate like you do with a good monolight or power pack, but you
will probably be shooting with a relatively large f-stop anyway
in order to soften the background, so f8 or f11 in medium format, for
example is enough, and easily achievable with decent flashguns.

I use 3 Photogenic Powerlight 600's which have proportional modeling
lights in infinite sliders (matched to the light output control) and give
me f32 bounced into a softbox at 5 feet, or f 32 direct at 10 feet, and with
the output control I can power that down to f5.6. Thus I can control
my contrast levels, the intensity of the background, and so on.

If you are shooting without Polaroid or modeling lights, you should have a 
flash meter with a flat diffuser so that you can read each light
separately in incident mode to gauge the contrast levels and the amount
of light each flash is contributing.  It also helps to have a spot meter
to read the reflected light from the subjects face in order to detect
hot spots, and to get a feel for the relative exposures that various parts of the       
the subject are receiving.

If money is not a major issue, you could look into Lumidyne which is a very
portable system, battery powered, with modeling lights and so on.  It is
expensive, but has a good reputation as a very flexible location
lighting system....especially if access to line power is an issue.

brian
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: micki@netcom.com (Michelle Stone)
Subject: Outgrowing your gear 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:34:19 GMT

panos@burton.cs.colorado.edu (Panos Tsirigotis) writes:


>Here are a couple of thoughts on outgrowing a camera:

>I have had an EOS 630 for almost 4 years; I don't think I have outgrown
>it or that I ever will. With the exception of mirror lockup, it has
>everything I need. Yes, I would like faster and/or fancier autofocus
>and whatever other features newer cameras have or will have but that is
>not something that will make me a better photographer.

>The only way I can think for outgrowing a camera is if you become a pro
>or want to take pictures in extreme environments in which case you will
>want to buy a pro SLR mainly because of how they are built, not because
>they offer more features.

>Just a personal opinion,

First: I was a Minolta buff.  I have a drawer full of bodies and lenses.
When I decided to upgrade to AF, Minolta had left me in the dust
by obsoleting all of my equipment.   I moved to the only manufacturer
who had maintained upgradability throughout their line of lenses,
flash, and cameras.   Nikon.

Second:  What I shoot today is much more demanding than when I 
bought my first camera.  With my first camera I was shooting
the family and vacation shots.  I just got back from spending 
three days on my belly in the mud in the Santa Cruz mountains shooting
mushrooms.  Thank you Nikon for building a machine that can take
the worst.

I say get the best deal on a general purpose camera.  Use it abuse it
and see what you don't like about it.  Then after you know what you 
really want, sell it and buy what you feel is the best.

Michelle


>Panos

>-- 
>Panos Tsirigotis, CS grad                        
>Pmail: Computer Science Dept., U. of Colorado @ Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309-0430
>Email: panos@cs.colorado.edu
-- 
micki@netcom.com

By the way.  I find myself to be a recent addition to the 
unemployment statistic.  I am a software manager.  If  you know
of an opportunity, please let me know!
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Astro-photography (sort of)
Date: 13 Dec 1992 10:54:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I am remiss and should have mentioned Michael Covington's book as
well as it is an excellent resource on astrophotography.

brian
From: ben_wen@athena.mit.edu (Benson Wen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lithiums vs. alkalines vs. Snickers Bars(was Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended)
Date: 19 Dec 92 20:16:20 GMT
	<PD.92Dec17021857@horus.sics.se>
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <PD.92Dec17021857@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:

   >A more creditable test for battery comparison is to examine the yields of
   >630 and 8008, although it is still comparing apples with oranges.

   Yes, for a good test we really need is a camera capable of using
   either lithiums or alkalines. Is there such a beast around somewhere?

The EOS-1 can use both AA or 2CR5's, but at different frame rates.
The 8 AA Booster E1 increases the frame rate to a maximum of 5fps.

The Contax RTS III also uses 2CR5's or AA's, but I don't know what
changes if you switch between the two.

   Every test of lithium batteries I've seen shows them to have more
   capacity than alkalines, so I'm inclined to believe that the poor
   reputation of lithiums here in rec.photo is the fault of power hungry
   cameras rather than lithiums being inferior.

Hmmm, maybe a systemic approach?  Well, if we're actually concerned
with the cameras' designs and how much each frame costs, in terms of
power requirements, then if a 630 with a fresh 2CR5 and an 8008s with
a fresh set of AA's (Alkaline or NiCd or Lithium) should go at it.
Then you can go with a cents per frame or per 36-exp roll.

Then of course, you'd have to try out all the other cameras from all
the other manufacturers...let's see an FM2n requires a 120deg stroke
with an average torque of 200 dyne*cm...the human body is
approximately 60% efficient, so... it's about 1/30 a Snickers Bar per
36-exp roll, not including rewinding, focusing, match needling...

Huh.  

-Ben
--

|| Benson Wen
|| ben_wen@athena.mit.edu
|| queeph@hing.lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis)
Subject: Re: Studio Flash Kits (Q)
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:31:16 GMT

In <1ga2f0INNk9n@rave.larc.nasa.gov> rlc@cyclone.larc.nasa.gov (Robin Cravey) writes:
>I'm posting this question for a friend whose installation doesn't
>carry this news group, and I don't normally read it - so any replies
>should be e-mailed to his address below!  Thanks!

>SUBJECT: Studio Flash Kits (Q)

>I'm in the market for setting up a small-scale home studio. I've been given a 
>lot of recommendations about equipment, but I've noticed a lot of ads for 
>Rokunar Studio Pro (SP) kits from various camera places (like Adorama, B&H, 
>etc.) Unfortunately, I can't find anyone who has used these or has any 
>firsthand knowledge of them. They seem to be a great buy so I'm wondering if 
>they're "too good to be true". My alternatives are White Lighting and Novatron 
>Monolights, but they are considerably more expensive for equivalent power and 
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^
>accessories. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

>Tony Valle
>valle@huntsville.sparta.com

The Rokunar kits don't seem like that great of a value to me
when you consider a few points.

1) We're really not talking about equivalent power.  The smallest
White Lighting unit made is 200 WS.  Most of the Rokunar/Adorama
things are in the 60-135 WS range.  The more powerful units are not
less expensive than the White Lightnings.

2) Most of the Rokunar units do NOT have proportional modeling lights;
White Lightnings do.  Also, replacement of WL modeling lights is very
inexpensive.  The 5,000 & 10,000 units use ordinary 100-watt household
lightbulbs.  The Ultra units can use either household bulbs up to 250
watts or $5 photofloods.

3) I'm not sure some of the accessories you get with the Rokunar kits
are worth even the small amount you pay for them.  What are the
umbrellas and stands like?  Also, in pictures I've seen, the cases
that come with these kits look more like cardboard boxes than actual
cases.  Can anyone comment on the quality of the accessories?  Also, I
would think that the lights themselves would not be particularly
durable.
--
Al Goldis           alan-goldis@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin)
Subject: Re: Model Releases
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:56:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.200154.267@epas.toronto.edu>, sfysh@epas.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Moskal Fysh) writes:
|> What are they?  What do they say?  When are they needed?

Basically, they are just a contract between the model and photographer,
spelling out the rights each of them have with respect to the photos
or whatever was being produced. We could get into a great long-winded]
discussion about why one wording is better/worse than another, but they
frequently are worded something like:

In exchange for valuable considerations, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, I, <insert model name here>, do hereby irrevokably
assign all rights to any prints produced from films exposed of me
on <insert shoot date>, and all derivative works.

Make sure the model signs and dates it.

Some agreements may restrict the usage of the images to certain
media. Some will edscribe a general classification into which the
images fall, eg. fashion, figure, whatever. Some place termination
dates, after which any use would require renegotiation of the contract.
Some allow for cheap prints to be made for the model, by request (this
is expecially true in the photo club venue).

Without an agreement of this sort, any images produced may not be shown!
More to the point, you can be sued if there is not an agreement.
Make sure you get it in writing.

Hope this helps.

glen
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zawada@athens.eid.anl.gov (Dave Zawada)
Subject: Choice of Teleconverter
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:03:19 GMT

Hi,

I am thinking of buying a 2x teleconverter for my Eos 10s.
I would use it with my 100-300 USM lens.

The salesman at my local camera shop has told me that
I would be better off going with a Tamron converter, as
opposed to one from Canon.  He claims that the Tamron is
100% compatible, has the same quality optics, and is
around $100 cheaper.  Is there any truth in his statement?

Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Dave
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: "rick sproule" <rick.sproule@canrem.com>
Subject: i give film 'bout 7-1
Reply-To: "rick sproule" <rick.sproule@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 11 Dec 92 13:27:10 EST


AS>| If you want snapshot quality then you'll be quite happy
AS>| with the electronic imaging that will be available to the
AS>| masses in the next decade or so.

AS>Absolutely. Photo CD proves the point. A product like this could
AS>never have been launched in a quality-conscious marketplace. The
AS>Sony machine that spits out prints of video frames is another
AS>example. Wretched quality, but gee-whiz convenience!

AS>I'd LOVE to be able to scan B&W negs into my Mac, manipulate them
AS>in PhotoShop, then send the files to a super-hi-res imagesetter.
AS>This is possible now, but the quality isn't there yet.
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just curious, what is the quality your looking for?  Files produced by 
Photo CD are in the 18MB range which I was under the impression is more 
than adequate for most desktop publishing needs.                   

Rick.
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #2788  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044