HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Subject: xmas displays
Reply-To: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:41:24 EST


SH>With Christmas  being only  a few  days from  now, many  of my  naighbors have
SH>decorated their houses  with Christmas lights and other stuff.   Some of these
SH>homes are quite nicely decorated and I  would like to capture them on film for
SH>posterity.  My goal is to record colors and details of each home.

  I'd be inclined to use daylight film and shoot just at twilight, on a
tripod of course. 
  If you can hit the "magic moment" when there's a rough balance
between the post-sunset skylight and the Christmas lights, you should
be able to get a nice blue-violet sky, a shadowy image of the house and
a good reproduction of the Christmas lights.  
  If you meter the scene, remember your meter is trying to give you 18%
grey.  You may want to bracket down from that (shorter exposures).
  On the other hand, if you're shooting after dark (and depending on
other available illumination such as street lights) you may want to pop
a flash or two during the time exposure from far enough back that it
just picks up enough of the house to set the scene.

-- Ron
ronald.hands@canrem.com
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #10218  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Film Flatness
Date: 13 Dec 92 16:19:01 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <334@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal) writes:
>: 
>: I am not sure which magazines you read, but get a few copies of the Hasselblad
>: Forum, and then consider the quality of the images..except those that were
>: shot with Softar filters, you will find the images tack sharp!
>
>And how might we get a copy of this magazine?

Through VHI, of course! Drop a line to:

	Victor Hasselblad, Inc.
	10 Madison Road
	Fairfield, NJ. 07006
	(201) 227-7320

A subscription is $18/yr, I think.

I simply don't believe the "reverse curl" story - I routinely enlarge
to 16x20 or 20x24. I, too, have had my results mistaken for 4x5. If
you actually look at the film path in the Hasselblad magazine, you'll
notice that there are two tension rollers in the magazine shell which are
specifically intended to prevent this from happening. This is one of the 
reasons why Hassy magazine shells and inserts are "matched" by serial
number. Some manufacturers don't use this kind of mechanism - they are
certainly prey to the "reverse curl" problem. In a Hasselblad, the film is not 
just "pressed" flat by the pressure plate, it's also under slight tension
(assuming you're not using a magazine with a "mismatched" insert).

I've never had any durability problems, either. All of my equipment,
with the exception of one lens and one magazine, was purchased used.
I have no idea what sort of use its previous owner(s) put it through
(my 150mm was made in 1965 - I assume it's been around the block a few
times), but I've used it in typhoons, desert summers, mountain winters,
and even your occaisional chip foundry and PCB plant. Never even hiccuped.

Of course, if any of y'all feel the urge to get rid of that nasty, 
unreliable Hasselblad gear, please feel free to send me some email ;-).

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Query: Books on physics of photography
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:48:21 GMT

dtalmage@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu wrote:

: Who can recommend some books on the physics of photography?  They're 
: for my wife, a chemist w/strong math background.  She's interested in 
: the way lenses work and why exposures work the way they do (e.g. f/8 @ 
: 1/100 sec == f/16 @ 1/50 sec).

[shameless plug warning]

For a decent explanation of such things, borrow a copy of "The Camera" by
(none other than) Ansel Adams.  I've seen books that go into much more
depth, but I couldn't read them for long. :)
-- 
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: rfrench@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Robert S. French)
Subject: Tamron 28-200/3.8-5.6
Keywords: Nikon, F3HP, for sale
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:42:26 GMT

So, has anyone seen the new Tamron 28-200/3.8-5.6 AF lens that is
mentioned (and advertised) in this month's Pop Photog?  It sounds
wonderful - only 15 oz, something like 3.5" long when retracted, two
aspheric elements, 14 elements total.  $263 mail order (B&H &
Adorama).  I'm interested in the EOS EF version.  I'm very tempted to
run out and buy one...anyone have any experience with it?

		Rob
From: jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: WD-40 Remover?
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:46:43 GMT
Organization: ISC - Bunker Ramo, Spokane, WA

In article <1992Dec16.151119.17167@bcrka451.bnr.ca> poole@bnr.ca (Thomas Poole) writes:
>to the desired distance. When I got the camera, I could
>not turn the lens to focus so I sprayed it with a
>little WD-40 and let it sit. An hour later everything

GACK!  WD-40 is something like 40-weight motor oil with
a volatile solvent in it.  This thins it down so that it
gets everywhere.  Once the solvent's gone, you will find
all the squeaks in your lens cleared up as if by magic...

>and keeps running back. I tried using a little
>isopropyl alcohol to dilute the WD-40 and hope
>that it would help the WD-40 evaporate but it didn't
>work that well. Can someone suggest something to 
>dissolve this stuff?

You are going to have to disassemble it pretty thoroughly, use a
solvent to get all the crap out of it, and then re-lubricate it.
I've done similar cleanups on my Stereo Realist and an old Ikonta
camera I bought for $15.  I used ether to clean out the gunk,
a can of starting fluid from an auto parts store works just fine.
Supposedly watch oil is good for oil (I've been using a tube of
light machine oil that I've had forever), I don't know what you'd
use for grease on a focusing helicoid.  I've only used the light
machine oil, and haven't touched the greasy areas (with solvent
or lube).

WD-40 et al. are DEATH to fine mechanisms, a lesson I learned when
as a kid I used to fix old mechanical calculators for fun.

-- 
+----------------+
! II      CCCCCC !  Jim Cathey
! II  SSSSCC     !  ISC-Bunker Ramo
! II      CC     !  TAF-C8;  Spokane, WA  99220
! IISSSS  CC     !  UUCP: uunet!isc-br!jimc (jimc@isc-br.isc-br.com)
! II      CCCCCC !  (509) 927-5757
+----------------+
			One Design to rule them all; one Design to find them.
			One Design to bring them all and in the darkness bind
			them.  In the land of Mediocrity where the PC's lie.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 20:03:40 GMT


In article <Bz0Apw.A66.2@cs.cmu.edu>, rane+@cs.cmu.edu (Aaron Hughes) writes:
|> He told
|> me that the 10s has fewer features overall (slower shutter, slower
|> flash sync, no matrix or spot metering - and it uses those terrible
|> lithium batteries)  but that it is built well,it has a pretty 
|> useful built-in flash, and Canon lenses are just as good as Nikon - 
|> the USM's may even be better.  

I would do without a lot of the gadgetry, but I
would *never* have a camera without a spot meter.

You might want to look at the Nikon 6006.  It uses
*those* batteries, but it has all the neat flash
stuff you'd have to buy an SB24 for, and it has
matrix, center-weighted, and spot metering.

-- 
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.
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: 2475 != 2415; was: Re: grain
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:51:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Dec13.185149.3417
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Dec14.005848.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.023018.18617@athena.cs.uga.edu>, mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec13.043828.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
>>>Ah, an easy one!! Kodak Recording 2475. Double the grain, or your money back.
>> My understanding is that that film was discontinued in the USA something
>> like five years ago.  Apparently it's still clinging to life in England
>> and Australia...
>
>Well, its still in the Kodak catalogue, and 2 places I was in Fri had it in
>the fridge. Maybe its become a SO in its twilite years... :-)

Are you sure that wasn't Technical Pan Film 2415?  
I can't find Recording Film 2475 in the 1990 Kodak catalogue, nor have
I seen any in a _long_ time.  But all the camera stores have 2415.
They are totally different materials.


-- 
:-  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: fisk@cvdv99.mayo.edu (Tom Fisk | 2D-337 STM | 5-4341)
Subject: Re: Questions on Studio Portrait Photography
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: fisk@mayo.edu
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department - Mosaic Group
Distribution: rec
Date: 13 Dec 1992 15:39 -0700

In article <1992Dec13.015322.16511@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, aqhx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes...
>Hello, neters
> 
>     I just have a few questions concerning portrait photography.  
> 
>1)  How important is a good flashmeter in a studio setting?  Can you get away  
>    Meter IV F but it cost around $230.  Any suggestions?

Absolutely critical...unless you know the output of each flash, carefully 
measure the distance from the subject of each unit and add up the corresponding
values you will get either under-exposed or over-exposed pictures.  I tried
many times without a flashmeter and it just wasn't worth it.  I use the 
Spiratone SSS Flashmeter ($169) [ok you pro's... stop chuckling!] and it works
well.  It is a good basic flashmeter...if you want a lot of fancy stuff then
this isn't what you want.

>2)  What would be a good starter kit for lighting?  The Studio Pro Home
>    Portrait kit looks like a good deal, but according to some comments posted
>    earlier, you get what you pay for.  If resources ($$$) is not too much of
>    a concern, what do you suggest?

You have my comments on this area already...again, it works well for me and I
do about 15-20 shoots a year.  If you plan to do more then it would be worth
looking farther....

>3)  Can I get away with lighting with, say, 3 units of electronic flashes,
>    mounted on stands with umbrellas instead of the bulky strobes?  I own a
>    Sunpak 433D flash.  Since I don't have too much storage space, I would 
>    prefer to use small flash units instead of the strobes. 

Yes, it can be done with flash strobes, but you should have your two main
units have the same power output.  If they are not then you have to balance the
units carefully so as not to overexpose one side vs. the other.  Again, a 
flashmeter can help you here to make sure the lighting is what you want.  One
problem with most electronic flashes is (again!) power output.  When you bounce 
a flash into an umbrella you loose alot of power.  I also tried this and was 
mostly frustrated with the results...

> 
> 
>   Any comments or suggestions would be much appreciated.  If a lower price
>   more for the better quality.  I just hope the whole thing (flashmeter and 
>   studio lighting equipment) won't cost more than $800.
> 

I thought you said $$$ wasn't an issue  ;-)  .....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas B. Fisk          +----------------------------+  Internet: fisk@mayo.edu
Mayo Clinic             |   If you don't know where  |  Voice: (507) 255-4341
200 First Street SW     |  you're going you'll never |  FAX: (507) 255-5484
Mail Stop 2D-337 STM    |         get there.         |
Rochester, MN  55905    +----------------------------+
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (Eric Chen)
Subject: HELP: history of Nikkormat FS (not FTn, FT, EL, etc)
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson SC
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:53:47 GMT

Recently, I got a chance to collect two near mint condition Nikkormat FS
(both made in 1974).  I have check over some literature but can not
found anything about this model.  No one sell it in Shutterbug or
Popular Photography.  Since I have two of them, I would like to sell
one.  But I don't know the current price is.  

Does someone on the net can help me out? 

Is the model rare or prominent?  How much should I price?

I appreciate any response.

Thank you.

Eric
From: kassover@rumsey.crd.ge.com (David Kassover)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: I Hate Grainy Pictures
Keywords: HELP
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:50:28 GMT
Organization: nope

In article <1992Dec12.164042.18049@ra.msstate.edu> dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.140910.5999@spock.UUCP> gumby@spock.uucp (Danny Richman) writes:
>>	I have recently been assigned to take indoor sports BW pictures for my
>>school newspaper.
...
>>but I am at my last stop and can't afford to push the film at all.
>>When I enlarge the pictures I get a lot of grain.  Well, sure I expected it, 
>>but isn't there anything I can do????  Is there any fine grain Black and White
>>films out there????  Can't anyone help me????
>
>Yeah. Go out and get an old bulb-type flashgun and some #25FP bulbs.
>Then use ASA  400 film. I'm sorry, but having done this since the '60s
>I find it hard to be sympathetic about grain at ASA 3200. Most of my
>cameras don't even have that setting!

I hope it's not a fencing match he's planning on shooting.  I
been on both sides of that, and unless he wants to get the point
real quick, he'll not use flash of any sort.

Large quartz lights placed very carefully may help.

And for events like this, I wouldn't bother with an in-camera
meter.  If my handheld meter couldn't be set for 3200, i'd just
the the arithmetic in my head.  multiplying by two isn't that
hard...

And oh yeah, unless you're absolutely sure your shutter is
accurate at 1/1000, I might not want to depend on it.  1/500 set
will probably do.



-- 
David Kassover             "Proper technique helps protect you against
uupsi!khazad!kassover	          sharp weapons and dull judges."
kassover@aule-tek.com                   F. Collins
kassover@ra.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ok3jonas@gemini.ldc.se (Jonas Palm)
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 is a good medium format camera ?
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: University of Lund, Sweden
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:51:17 GMT

In article <1gl0meINNo9f@iraul1.ira.uka.de>, uli@i13d5.ira.uka.de (Uli
Bodenhausen) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Dec15.111940.20308@alf.uib.no>, edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor Legvold) writes:
>> In article <MOREAUX.92Dec4193159@litsun22.epfl.ch> moreaux@litsun22.epfl.ch (Michel Moreaux) writes:
>>>
>>>I am about to buy a Pentax 67 (Santa will also bring me a spotmeter and a
>>>colour analyser ;-). I decided in favour of this camera because I think that
>>>it is less heavy than Mamiya RZ67 and Bronica GS1.
>>>However, the prices of the Pentax lenses are rather low (compared to those
>>>of Mamiya and Bronica). What about the Pentax ? Are the lenses great or not ?
>> 
>> Not.
>> See Color Photo  (German photo magazine) for a semi-complete listing of 
>> lenses they have tested.  Pentax tends to be at the bottom (although in
>> all fairness the MF lenses usually score 5 or 10 points more of 100 than
>> 135mm camera lenses).  
> 
> Hmm, if you actually read the issue with the lens tests carefully you
> will find that they compared the lenses wide open, at a medium aperture
> and at the smallest aperture. The 165mm/2.8 Pentax lens got a mediocre
> overall score because it was not as good wide open. BUT: Wide open
> with the Pentax lens means f 2.8 while all the other lenses were
> f 3.5, f 4 or even more. If you compare the lenses at equal apertures,
> the Pentax scores well.
> 
> If I remember right, the Pentax 55mm lens is on top of the 6x7 wide angle
> lenses. The 105mm/f2.4 also suffered from the performance at f2.4. This
> is a serious critique (sp?) of this test. They didin't compare lenses at
> comparable apertures.
> 
> 	Uli

Actually, not only did they weigh in the max aperture as being equal,
but even worse, the medium aperture they also test is _2 stops down_!!
Therefore the Pentax 165 is tested at f2.8 and f5.6 against the
f4 and f8 of the other lenses. It is most impressive that the Pentax
lenses manages to perform roughly as well as their competition given 
the grossly unfair testing procedure.

                                          Jonas Palm
testing procedure.
Organization: Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentatn, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:50:23 -0500 
From: "Frank A. Reynolds" <fr0c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Photo CD Resolution 

First let me thank everyone who e-mailed or posted on my "Resolution of
Lens" question.
***************************************************************

Last week I viewed a Photo CD that had of 12 slides I took on it.  It
prompts the following questions.

When it comes to resolution, with Photo CDs (or does/can this apply to
all scanned images) how do you know what kind of results you can or
should be getting?  If I have prints made at a photo lab and the prints
do not look sharp, I can just look the negatives and make "a estimation"
of weather the prints or my negatives are the cause.   Of course with
even a low powered plastic magnifier I can make a even better
evaluation, but a good 8X or 10X magnifier will tell me for sure if I
have a sharp of soft image and that "I can blow this up to 11x14 with no
problems" or "I better stick to wallet size with this one".

With scanned images is there a simple way to tell what you have?  A
monitor with higher resolution will tell you (show you) more about the
image, right?  But what if you do not have one handy?  Is there some
simple way to evaluate the resolution of images on Photo CDs?  

I do not know if this is directly related to the above questions, but
how do the five resolutions of the Photo CDs relate to the monitor you
may be using?



Frank Reynolds
From: kortikar@mipos2.intel.com (Aniruddha Kortikar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Differences Between N5005,6006,8008
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:52:43 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA

Would there be some document explaining diff between Nikon 5005,6006,8008 ?

Also will there be some FAQ for list of terms such as matrix metering ?

If there is some FAQ for comparision of these models with other camera's that
I can get it would be of great help.

regards,

Aniruddha Kortikar (kortikar@mipos2.intel.com)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail 	: kortikar@mipos2.intel.com | A billion here, a billion there ...
Phone(W): 408 765 5515              | pretty soon it adds upto real money.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Film Flatness
Date: 16 Dec 92 01:43:53 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

kassover@rumsey.crd.ge.com (David Kassover) writes:
: >In article <1992Dec13.201504.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
: >>In article <334@metran.UUCP>, jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
: >>...
: >>> BTW, I don't know if this matters, but I do not consider tacks to be
: >>> very sharp.  Needles, yes.  Scalpels, yes.  Razor blades, yes.  Tacks?
: 
: Needles are point weapons, a la epee.  Scalpels and razors are
: edge weapons, a la sabre.
: 
: Tacks (of the carpet variety), having both a point and a sharp
: edge are thus a la rapier.
: 
: Each has its purpose, strengths and weaknesses.
: 
: Who has not had the experience of reaching into a bag of tacks,
: and withdrawing one's unclenched hand covered with the little
: buggers?

OK, my apologies; I guess I have had more misfortune with the edge
and point weapons hanging in my memory ;-)  Also, I had been thinking
of thumbtacks rather than carpet tacks, which are very unfamiliar to me.

So, Hasselblad lenses are "carpet tack sharp".  OK, I give up!
-- 
Jay Ts
uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
phone: (813) 979-9169
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: Kodachrome 64
Organization: LA&W RR
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:25:23 GMT

In article <121000002@hpldsla.sid.hp.com> tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich) writes:

>In my opinion, spectacular sunsets. The extreme highlights right around
>the sun have always gone green for me, back when I had the film processed
>at *Kodak* (not Kodalux, Qualex, Fuqua, or whatever the name du jour has
>been since) in Palo Alto, CA. I was very surprised when the same conditions
>gave rise to magenta highlights, when one of the photo mags sent their K64
>to the Kodak lab in New Jersey. Conclusion: something in the Kodachrome
>film or process is very picky, with the result being green/magenta crossover. 

Maybe, maybe not.  I once shot the identicle scene at the end of one
roll of K25 and then at the beginning of the next roll of K25.  The only
difference was a couple of minutes of elapsed time to rewind and reload.

Both rolls went to Kodak Fair Lawn together and came back together.
Since I delivered the rolls by hand and picked them up, they would have
gone through the processing very close together.

One is very green compared to the other.  The most significant
difference?  The green roll had about a year to go before expiring, the
magenta roll was near the expiration date.

This is a fairly reproducable phenomena which I and some other
Kodachrome photographers I know have observed: "Fresh"  K25/64 tends to
produce greenish colors while K near or past it's expiration date is
more magenta.  As I understand it, the only difference between
"standard" K and Professional K is that the Pro stuff is aged by Kodak
to its peak color reproduction and then frozen to hold it at that point.

Bill


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Christian Brudevoll <chribrud@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: B&W 126-film, does it exist?
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:37:40 GMT
Originator: chribrud@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no

I have got some Instamatic-cameras, and might use one of them 
myselve. Looking in catalogs at the local photo-store, only 
negative clorfilm exists.

Does anybody know about black an white film in 126 format?


			    	Christian Brudevoll
                                University of Oslo
                                Norway