HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: accwai@math.uwaterloo.ca (Andy Wai)
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Film Flatness
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:45:35 GMT

In article <335@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>kfitzsim@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Kevin Fitzsimons) writes:
>:First of all, I don't see how you could "see" the difference in sharpness of 
>:different cameras/lenses in magazine photos.
>
>Apparently, you are not a very critical viewer.  Or maybe you read the
>wrong magazines :-)

Well, look at the photos in some magazines and compare them with some
of your best shots.  I think it will soon became quite obvious that
the magazines don't even come close to what a good slide or print can do.
I personally have doubts about whether the printing process can show
differences between top cameras and lenses.  Besides, how do you know
the differences are due entirely to the camera system?  Everything from
lighting to film to the photomechanical process used contributes some-
thing to the final results.

>: Third, It is my opinion that almost any lens from a name manufacturer can 
>: render a very, very sharp image if used in ideal situations.
>: By that I mean finding the ideal f
>: stops which produce the sharpest images, and using a very stable tripod.
>
>That is what I did, plus cable release and mirror lockup with the Olympus.
>(My Nikon does NOT have mirror lockup, and STILL gives sharper pictures!)

I think it's under the ideal condition that the differences between cameras,
lenses, etc become apparent.  For most people, it's very difficult if not
total impossible to shoot under those ideal conditions and things become a
lot less clear cut.  Try comparing the stuff you normally shoot and the tests
you make under ideal conditions and see how consistently you can come close
to the level of your tests.  Is that a disaster though?  Not really.  Photo
gear are not made to shoot test targets, so why worry.  

Andy Wai

P.S. I'm a studio still life guy.  I shoot under close to ideal conditions.
     So there :-)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shendry@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Slamet Hendry)
Subject: Re: improvise view finder magnifier?
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:04:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.073507.12139@microsoft.com> peterwu@microsoft.com (Peter Wu) writes:
>I have a view finder magnifier for my EOS 10s, but it's only 2X. I need
>a higher magnification (and a wider field please) one. Since Canon
>doesn't make any other ones, I wonder how I can improvise one.

1. What exactly is a "view-finder magnifier", & how does it attach to the
camera?

2. How much does it reduce the sharpness of the view thru the view-finder?
I have a manual focusing camera, so if the sharpness is reduced by much,
it would defeat the purpose of getting one.

3. Is one available for Nikon FM2?

Please post. Thank's a bunch.

- Slamet Hendry
  (shendry@silver.ucs.indiana.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: umeca80@ps.ic.ac.uk (Bruce Taylor)
Subject: Re: Need help getting dark B&W sky
Organization: Imperial College Computer Centre
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 09:31:19 GMT

If you want really dark skies in B&W try using a polarizer and a mid red  or
dark red filter together (polarizer in front). This gives very dark or black
skies (and around 4 stops light loss :-).

===============================================================================
Bruce Taylor                                    Process Systems Engineering
umeca80@ps.ic.ac.uk                             Imperial College, London
===============================================================================
"I wish I could think of a good quote to put at the end of this posting".
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale,ga.forsale
From: ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (Eric Chen)
Subject: >> Leica body and lens for sale
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson SC
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:17:44 GMT

Accidentally, I lost all the reply about my Leica camera.  I can not
reply to the people who are interested in the camera.  If you see this
post, please E-mail me or call me again if you still interested.

Original post was Leica Elmar 35mm f3.5 screw mt. + Leica Elmar 90mm f4
screw mt. fair condition.

Both sale for $200

Free Leica IIIa body (shutter need work, not reliable), special edition
	with round corner of finder, leather part scratched (10%)

Free Leica flash units (no bulb)

Free light meter (need battery)

I will take $200 cash or trade for non-AF Nikkor lens of $450 value.

serial # 35mm 532230, 90mm 372776, body 261606

Also, I am not sure about the history, does anyone have the Leica book
can tell me how old it is?

Eric
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute
Date: Friday, 11 Dec 1992 13:42:19 EST
From: <DCROWE@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: EOS lens list

The list is very good, and since it includes the 28-105mm zoom is a recent one.
It does omit the new 35-350mm lens, however, which has been described in detail
in this group.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Nikon MF lenses on AF bodies
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:22:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.182747.25100@cs.UAlberta.CA> rodney@cs.UAlberta.CA (Rodney Gitzel) writes:
>
>Is there any performance penalty in using
> MF lenses on AF bodies (for Nikon)?  I'm
> just wondering, as someone told me once that
> you lose 2/3 of a stop of lens speed.

Not so.

I can't imagine how the lens speed would be different with one kind of
lens than with the other.  Anyhow, from my days of briefly using a
Nikon 2020 (several years ago), I recollect that the manual lenses were
supposed to work fine with no loss of performance.


-- 
:-  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...
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis)
Subject: Re: Bulk loading etc
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:54:34 GMT

In <1992Dec8.205550.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:

>In article <1992Dec7.001035.16499@athena.cs.uga.edu>, mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>> I use either Kodak Snap-Cap cassettes

>Could you give more details on these please?

I'm generally a pretty big fan of Kodak products, but not their reloadable
cassettes.  They're absolutely awful.  Flimsy and cheap, easily bent,
light leaks, and they don't hold up.

It's getting harder to find good cassettes.  I (we) order film from
Main Line Foto and they used to come in really great reloadables.  Now
they've gone to crimped (non-reuseable) cassettes. :-(  When asked
where Main Line got their old cassettes:  "We manufactured them."  No
longer.

The cassettes that some Ilford film is packaged in are very nice.  I
just ordered a bunch of these type of cassettes from Freestyle in Los
Angeles.  Unfortunately, they say that they are also no longer being
manufactured.
--
Al Goldis           alan-goldis@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: accwai@math.uwaterloo.ca (Andy Wai)
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Film Flatness
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:58:52 GMT

In article <1gd70tINN95s@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal) writes:
>
>Well, I can't let this one slip by the way I have avoided the A
>debate on photo-l :-)

I know.  That's why I put the falling apart bit in there just for you :-)
To be fair, I think my friend has been looking to go to 6x7 for a long time.
The problem with the lenses and the backs is probably just the last straw.

>[...] But really, all these extravagant claims..

This coming from the Hassy camp?  Hmm...  Anyway, I mentioned my friend's
results in passing just to add another data point to Jay's friend's claim
about the Pentax lenses.  But the main point in my previous posting was
actually to refute the part about film flatness.  And I didn't touch the
magazine photo bit, so don't look at me man.

>when you are deciding between
>top stuff like Pentax 67, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollei and so on, the
>basic excellence of the gear is a given, and it is the handling details
>and suitable for various applications that are of importance, all
>justifications and rationalizations aside...

Absolutely.  Choose the tool within your budget that would best do the
job for you, then just shut up and go do the damn job.  Same thing's
true for the sliver vs. digital thing.  Arguing till you're red in the
face is amusing at times but quite counterproductive in general.

Andy Wai
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: accwai@math.uwaterloo.ca (Andy Wai)
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Film Flatness
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 15:42:31 GMT

In article <327@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>
>Today I was talking with a local professional photographer who has many
>years of experience.  He was using Hasselblad cameras, but switched to
>Pentax 6x7.  I was curious why, and asked him if he had compared the
>sharpness of the Pentax and Zeiss lenses.  He told me that the images he
>got on film with his Pentax were much sharper, and that the Hasselblad
>was "no match" for it.

A friend of mine here at Waterloo (hi John) recently did the same thing
too.  His main reason was the lenses and backs are falling apart.  The
lenses were serviced a year ago and hardly used at all.  So he got rid
of the whole thing and let somebody else have the pleasure of taking
them in for the overhaul.  (Nice guy :-)  Anyway, he also observed that
the Pentax is noticeably sharper than the Hasselblad.

>[...]  But he seemed to feel
>that a much greater factor was in the cameras' pressure plates, because
>120 roll film, by itself, just isn't very flat.  If the film isn't flat
>during exposure, then the quality of the lenses is less of an issue.

Hmm, a pressure plate is a pressure plate.  I can't see how Pentax can
make one that's significantly better than Hasselblad.  I think it may
have more to do with the film path.  The Hasselblad holder (and many,
many others) reverse curls the film before it reaches the film gate.
If the film has been sitting in the holder for a while, the frame just
before the gate will have a chance to settle in this backward position.
Once it reaches the gate, it will tend to push outward and no regular
pressure plate will be able to bring it back.  It's simple enough to
fix though.  Just fire off that frame before you do anything critical.
That, of course, still doesn't explain why the Pentax is consistently
sharper.  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.

Andy Wai
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: More Medium Format Questions?
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:21:00 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
: 
: In article <1992Dec9.170330.25194@cbnews.cb.att.com>, fohl@cbnews.cb.att.com (mark.e.fohl) writes:
: 
: |> There are several rangefinders available.  Fuji makes a series of them in
: |> 3 formats: 6 x 4.5, 6 x 7, and 6 x 9. 
: 
: and 6 x 17.  ::sigh::
: 
: All these big rangefinders are *pricy*, though.

Well, they may be beyond *my* budget too, but you must admit that compared
to other medium format equipment (Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc.) they are quite
reasonable.  I think that less than $1000 for a 6x7 or 6x17 is *good*!

-- 
Jay Ts
uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
phone: (813) 979-9169
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale,utah.misc
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Omega C760 Dichroic enlarger for sale
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:51:12 GMT

I have a Omega C760 Dichroic enlarger (diffusion, not condenser) that I'd
like to sell.  This enlarger has (1) 35mm glassless negative carrier and
a 50mm-f/3.5 Rodenstock El-Omegar lens.  Baseboard, too, of course. :)

It also has a brand new (less than 1 hour) lamp (spares are $27 or so).
Yes, this enlarger will do color, though I've never used it for that.  The
reason I'm selling it is that I'd like to move to a bigger format, and the
Omega will only handle 35mm comfortably (well, it won't do 4x5, which is
what I'd like to shoot).

I'd like to get $250, although reasonable offers will be considered.  This
enlarger (as far as I can tell) sells for around $400 new (at least, in the
back of Pop Photo - your mileage may vary).

I'd also like to sell this thing locally (at least within driving distance
of Salt Lake City), as it's kinda bulky to ship, unless you are an expert
at putting these things together.  I do not have the original box (I bought
it used from a dealer in California), so I'd have to find a suitable, well-
padded box.

If you are not local to Salt Lake City, and you *really* want this enlarger,
write or call - I suppose we can work something out. :)
-- 
Ed Carp			erc@apple.com, erc@saturn.upl.com	801/538-0177

Who and what would you be if you went beyond your deepest fears?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shendry@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Slamet Hendry)
Subject: Re: Query: Books on Photo composition 
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:44:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.190948.28674@research.nj.nec.com> arif@ccrl.nj.nec.com (Arif Merchant) writes:
>I would appreciate suggestions for *basic* books on photographic composition.
>More advanced books are also of interest, but I'm just starting out.
>If it makes a difference, I am talking about 35mm, color photography.
>Thanks!
>  Arif Merchant

"Designing a Photograph" by Bill Smith, published by Amphoto. 

"Photography for the Joy of It" & "Photography and the Art of Seeing" by
Freeman Patterson, published by Sierra Club Book. (He is a great
photographer & author, in my personal opinion.)

- Slamet Hendry
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: Lithiums vs. alkalines (was Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended)
Reply-To: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 04:26:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.222710.8812@adobe.com> asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders) writes:
>
>This is certainly a possibility, but I remember that Canon's own
>promotional literature claimed about *half* the number of rolls for 
>a 630 using lithiums as Nikon claimed for an 8008 using AA's. And

Canon claims 150 24-exp rolls in the best case (standard lens,
normal temperature, focus and shoot). I would have a hard time to believe
that 8008 can get 300 rolls on a set of 4 AAs, under any case.

Jason Chen

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: malu@imhps.im.se (Mats Luthman SYSTECON)
Subject: Re: "Signature Color" film -- what's the story?
Organization: Industri-Matematik Data AB, Sweden
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:25:21 GMT

In article <JIK.92Dec16010141@pit-manager.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
   For the past several weeks, the coupon leaflets in the Boston Sunday
   Globe have had in them an advertisement for a company calling itself
   "Signature Color."

   They claim to have come up with a new, better color film, by taking
   35MM motion picture film and adapting it for use in 35MM cameras.

   They offer to let people try this film for free -- by sending in a
   coupon and $1.99 for shipping and handling, you can get two
   20-exposure rolls of the film.

   OK, so I'm saying to myself, what's the catch?  Either (a) the film
   really is much better, so much so that they think people who try it
   will decide to buy more rather than buying other film, or (b) the film
   is different enough from normal 35MM film that it requires a special
   developing process that only Signature Color can provide (and, of
   course, if this is the case, I'm sure they charge an arm and a leg for
   it).

   The (b) possibility is strengthened by some of the fine print at the
   bottom of the coupon -- "Processing available at Signature Color with
   limited availability from other labs.  Process ECN-II."

   So, am I right?  Am I going to have to send the film back to them and
   pay a lot to get it developed?  If not, then what's the scam?  Is this
   really something for nothing, or is there a catch I'm missing?

   Thanks for any answers you can give.


There need not be anything strange with this. They are giving away the
film to get people to try it. It's simply a form av advertising: lots
of people will try it because it is free. Getting a new product out on
the market costs a lot of money, and this is one way of doing it.

I don't say that neither a) nor b) applies; but they COULD actually
think that the film is NOT better than other films, but that people
will buy it anyway, just because they've heard its name. There are
lots of examples of products that are sold with such market
strategies.


--
Mats Luthman
Systecon AB (A subsidiary of Industri-Matematik AB)
Stockholm, Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ksampath@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Krishna S Sampath)
Subject: Re: WD-40 Remover?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:07:31 GMT

>>
>>	Try acetone.  But no guarantees.  It SEEMS to thin anything!
>>
>
>It WILL dissolve many paints and plastics FAST.  Use it with caution.

just wondering...

how well will a long sustained, mild heat, slow speed blast from a hair dryer
work? this has been suggested previously for water, and i feel that it *may*
work for wd40....any comments from rec.photo.experts?

krishna

-- 
krishna s. sampath....graduate research assoc.....kss@ampere.eng.ohio-state.edu
ohio state u, electroscience lab......(614) 292-7981 (w)....(614) 292-7297  (f)
1320 kinnear rd, columbus, oh 43212...(614) 293-0913 (h)...011-91-4542-4127 (H)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: alc@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM (Al Chang)
Subject: Re: Lieca CL value
Organization: Grumman Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:14:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.001056.5475@tc.fluke.COM> colson@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Colson) writes:

   I have a Lieca CL....body with the 40 & 90 mm lenses and owners manual.  I've
   decided to sell this equipment and would like some opinions on what it might
   be worth.  The body needs $300 repair (rangefinder went out).  Everything works
   except being able to focus.  I would think the lenses would be worth something??

   Lenses runs for ~350 - $500 each (not trade in), camera $500-700
when fully functional. I think thats a wonderful camera, has excellant
lenses and its a poor man's Leica rangefinder. Shame the rangefinder
went out, that's not a typical CL failure, I got rid of my CL because
the meter failed and I went for a M6.

Al

--
******************************************************************************
Al Chang (516)346-6757,  FAX: (516)575-0965, email: alc@calvin.grumman.com
Grumman Data Systems, 111 Stewart Avenue, MS D12/25, Bethpage, New York 11714
******************************************************************************
-- 
******************************************************************************
Al Chang (516)346-6757,  FAX: (516)575-0965, email: alc@calvin.grumman.com
Grumman Data Systems, 111 Stewart Avenue, MS D12/25, Bethpage, New York 11714
******************************************************************************
From: mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Choice of Teleconverter
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:23:12 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <zawada-141292175621@ottawa.eid.anl.gov> zawada@athens.eid.anl.gov (Dave Zawada) writes:
>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

Tamron is a good name, which I would trust.  Canon only recommends their own
converters for use with one or two of their larger and more expensive lenses,
like the 400mm L.  I'm not sure why, though.

Mike

-- 
Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             mikec@spider.co.uk
Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mkuhn@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Martin W Kuhn)
Subject: Re: Polorid/Land cameras
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:59:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.054242.26@prime.mdata.fi> slime@mits.mdata.fi (Sam Laur) writes:
>In article <BzBAH1.JnJ@cup.hp.com> markt@cup.hp.com (Mark Thompson) writes:
>>I think that these are the cheap follow-on to what you have.  They take pack
>>film, I think yours takes roll?  I have heard of the 110a/b cameras being
> 
>Nah, it takes a pack, too. I guess the model 104 was made somewhere
>in the middle of the 60's - with the old color film system, and the
Yeah, the 104 was the cheap model in the original "100" series of pack film
cameras, which came out in 1963.


>with plastic lenses (at least that's what they feel like) and only
Right.  

>two fixed stops (one for B&W, one for color.) And then there's the
>weird one-window rangefinder with an obscure distance scale.
There isn't really a rangefinder on the 104.  Intead, it has a distance
scale (labeled in US feet-- I guess that's the "obscure" units you're 
referring too?)  and a wacky focusing aid for taking pictures of people--
note the 2 horizontal lines in the finder; (one of which is the focus
scale pointer) you move the focus lever until your subject's head
just fits within the two lines.  Cute, but not quite as wierd as the 
"triangulation distance finder" found on the original Square Shooter model.

>But anyway, does B&W Polaroid film anymore need a wipe with a "hardening
>substance" as described in my camera's manual?
Some do, some don't.  107C does not need a coater.  I don't know about
667, the "pro" version.  665 (prints) and 084 definitely do, however.


            --Marty
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Monday, 14 Dec 1992 16:05:52 MST
From: <IDMLH@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Dumb Photographers
Distribution: na
 <92349.085025IDMLH@ASUACAD.BITNET> <1992Dec14.182242.21761@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>

GO BEARS!  and not the Chicago Bears either!  I saw a person in Yellowstone
actually get about five feet away from a bison.  Oh Geez!  You just want to
pull them aside and ask for their I.Q.
Newsgroups: rec.photo