HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rbhank@wsl.dec.com (Ron Bhanukitsiri)
Subject: Re: Pentax (repair or replace) question
Keywords: Pentax camera
Reply-To: rbhank@wsl.dec.com (Ron Bhanukitsiri)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 17:43:24 GMT


In article <1992Jul30.092608.42002@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, ahlvers@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Richelle Ahlvers) writes:

|> Before my question:
|> 	I've been an amateur photographer (non-seriously) for several years
|> and am planning to (how do I put this to make it sound grammatically correct?)
|> become more involved, i.e.; I'm going to be working in the photography 
|> dept. for the student engineering magazine.  I have quite a bit of darkroom
|> equipment:  color-enlarger, etc...  
|> 	The camera I've been using is a Pentax KM (a couple of lenses, nice
|> flash, etc...).  This camera really agrees with me (I generally have a hard
|> time taking "bad" pictures with it.  I usually get several prints per roll 
|> worth enlarging, entering in local competitions, etc.. anyway, back to the
|> story...), but recently my light meter ceased functioning.  Now (finally!)
|> for my question:  Is it worth getting fixed?  I can't really afford to buy
|> a more advanced camera (nor do I really want one), but a used body that would
|> fit my lenses may be an option (price-wise).  What's the difference between
|> the KM and the K1000 bodies?  If you can't tell so far, I'm not really 
|> interested in nitpicky details -- just information that'll tell me if I need
|> to junk (sob!) my trusty camera, and possible replacements for it.  
|> 	I haven't taken the body in for an estimate because my favorite
|> camera store is in a different town that I haven't been to for a couple of
|> months.  (Alright, so I'm lazy too!!  :-) )
|> 	Any thoughts, comments, etc... would be greatly appreciated!
|> Richelle
|> 

You can call Pentax up and they *may* be able to give you an estimate.
Most likely though, they'll ask you to ship it (1-303-799-8000).

The KM is far superior to the K1000.  K1000 is the same as KM except it
doesn't have: depth-of-field preview nor self-timer.  So if you're happy
with the KM, you wouldn't be very happy with the K1000.  Depending on how
well you have taken care of your KM, it might be worth fixing considering
that you properly won't be able to get a good used body for under $100.

Meanwhile, you can continue to take those beautiful pictures and use the
"Sunny-16" rule :-); you might be surprised at how good you are at guessing
exposure.

Your Pen(tax) Pal,
Ron B[ee]
From: dhong@wam.umd.edu (Sze Yuen Hong)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: B&W enlarger advice
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:31:53 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <64427@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6692b@prism.gatech.EDU (ROBERTSON, SCOTT L.) writes:
>I am in the market for a decent entry-level enlarger. I will be printing
>black and white 35mm. Could anyone give me some suggestions about what
>equipment would be good for a beginner? How about the Beseler Cadet or Cadet II,
  Since you are considering Cadet I and II, I think you don't want to spend too
much maney on it. So here is my suggestion:

  If you are quite sure that you will stick with 35mm film only, think about
beseler printmaker 35. I don't think it is a really good enlarger, but at least
it is much better than the cadet i & II. The Cadet I & II look like a toy for
me. 
  If you think you may probably make some larger format film, think about Omega
C700. It also have a drawer for variable contrast filter and colour fiter.
  If you don't mind to use second hand product, check the used product list in
the magazine. You probably find some better enlarger in about the same price.

  Oh yes, the printmaker 35 is $135 wo/lens in my local store. A 50 mm beseler
enlarger lens cost you $60 (maybe cheaper in mail order). And the C700 is $149
in my local store wo/lens.k

>or would it be wiser to invest a bit more in a better quality enlarger? Thanks

  I think it is a bit wiser to get a better enlarger.
>in advance.

>
>		-Scott Robertson
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: draining 1.5v rechargables? HOW?
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:37:33 GMT

In article <Bs0F0I.D3q@cs.dal.ca>, graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham) writes:
> What is the best way to drain rechargeable batteries?
> I have 4 Nicads for my Vivitar 636 flash and although the ready light won't
> come on, the batteries still have a fair bit of juice left. I guess that
> it is best to drain them COMPLETELY before recharging...umm...so I need a
> method of doing this.
> 
Wire a torch globe across EACH cell. Leave for 15 min after it goes out.
Or bang a multi-meter on 10A range across each one. The later will give you
a good idea of the cells condition. 
I have a cheep set of battery holders with 1.5V 1A globe soldered across them
for this job.

~Paul
From: rjw@nsa.hp.com (Richard Webber)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: How much for a Omega D2?
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:54:49 GMT
Organization: Networked Systems Architecture, Hewlett-Packard Company

I just bought an Omega D2V.  It's a newer model with a crank for raising and
lowering the head rather than doing it by hand.  It came with a lens cone
(for 135 & 150mm lenses) and a 35mm neg carrier.  It is in excellent condition
(the best I have seen) and had just been professionally aligned.  I got it
from a pro store for $425.  I then bought a couple of used negative carriers
(glassless) for $25 each and a used Schneider Componon-S 135mm/5.6 for $225. 
So far I am very satisified with the results.

I have seen D2 models without crank for $250 - $300, sometimes with a lens,
but usually a poor one.  It's definitely worth investing in a good lens - it
will make a big difference as long as your enlarger is aligned and steady.

When you buy one, check the focusing throughout the full range - the Omegas
were often used in newspaper darkrooms for producing prints of the same size.
This can lead to undue wear in one small range of the focusing rails.

I have had no experience with the cold light head,

Good luck,

Richard
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Toting a tripod?
Keywords: tripod cases straps carrying
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:40:29 GMT

In <24383@castle.ed.ac.uk> huw@castle.ed.ac.uk (H G J Evans) writes:

>>Cases:
>>
>>   Advantages:
>>      tripod is less conspicuous

>Is  that really an advantage? I'm not sure why it should be, or do you
>just mean that it would be less of a temptation to the local tea-leaves?

I am a bit concerned by the possibility of being conspicuous to would-be
thieves.  Also, people tend to get nervous around camera equipment.  I
wonder if it's worth sparing them the anxiety.  (If they really have to
be nervous, they can be nervous when I get set up!  :-)

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 17:31:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <1992Jul27.190319.29543@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington):
> In article <1992Jul27.183634.4539@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>If you can't get in to a certain event to take pictures, then
>>how are you ever going to sell what you don't have, or can't get, simply
>>because of stupid rules that try and separate some photographers from
>>others. Its the old catch 22 syndrome.
> 
> Surely _some_ salable pictures can be taken without being granted special
> access...

With today's desktop publishing on PC, all you need is a cheap laser
printer, a 386 PC, a word publisher like Word Perfect (or other more powerful
word processors), you can easily put out a free paper (10 copies?  distributed
to you friends and relatives?).  What is more you need for you to be as
legitimate as the state's largest paper with circulation of 500,000?
Is there is registry of newspaper publisher?  What?
From: eugene@lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: cold light stabilizer, sources of ?
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:05:58 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


Ralf Vogelgesang writes:
> My friend is interested in a 'super-stable' light source


After investigating 8x10 enlargers with ultra-uniform and stable illumination,
of the six vendors that had the potential capability only one was recommended
by large color labs and government agencies: HK.

Although out of our price range, the entry-level 8x10 is $35,000.


eugene kowaluk
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Best Magazine for Photography
Date: 29 Jul 92 06:47:04 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Jul28.143252.7172@linus.mitre.org>, rajiv@hilltop.mitre.org (Rajiv Kohli) writes:

> Which is the best magazine to read/subscribe?
> 
> I am looking for a magazine or to be part of a group that will
> help improve photography results. No, I am not anymore interested
> in the cameras that are comming out. I have a minolta 7000. Yes,
> a few addons I wouldn't mind.

So you want a magazine that's more geared towards showing pictures than
towards the technicalities behind creating them? There are many... Ooops!
You want something in English? Now the number suddenly became much smaller.

One magazine I can recommend, though is PHOTO. You may or may not like it.
I've found most of their issues to be of good quality. Photo/Design is
another magazine (expensive, though) that's good. Too bad it isn't available
here in Sweden.

Magazines that are quite technical but still has a couple of pages with good
images in each issue are Outdoor & Travel Photography, Camera & Darkroom,
and Outdoor Photographer.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: cold light stabilizer, sources of ?
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:22:36 GMT
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <7881@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, vogelges@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (Ralf Vogelgesang) writes:
|>  My friend is interested in a 'super-stable' light source he needs
|>for exact reproducibility of his (b/w) prints.  He found a description
|>of a 'cold light stabilizer' invented by Prof.(?) Horowitz, Harward.
|>
|>	does anybody know where to get such a thing?
|>	or how built it?
Mail was having problems, so...  You can get them for the Aristo Heads from
Zone VI in Newfane, Vermont.  I believe Calumet also markets them.
--
My opinions and ideas are, in fact, not mine at all, but the property of
Digital Equipment Corp. (provided they relate to computers).  Opinions I may
have concerning other subjects are not really mine either, but are the product
of the environment I have been exposed to.  Thus, I am totally without
responsibility for anything I may say or do.
From: rwt@ohm.york.ac.uk (Richard Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Contax T2
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:13:15 GMT
Organization: Electronics Department, University of York, UK

In <PHR.92Jul22171055@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:


>      In terms of small rangefinders, I think nothing can beat the olympus
>    XA (or XA-3 and XA-4) and old leica screwmounts.

>I had an XA for a while and think it is a much overrated camera
>in this newsgroup.  The rangefinder base is absurdly small and
>the focus control is so fiddly that the rangefinder is almost useless.
>The scale focusing system on the Minox 35 was much easier to focus
>precisely even though you have to guess the distance.  Also,
>the XA's optics were no better than today's decent quality 
>point and shoot.  The add-on flash made it quite a bit bulkier
>than the Yashica T4, etc., the recycle was slower, and it had
>manual film advance.  The Olympus 35RC and friends seemed
>a lot nicer, with manual speeds etc., though a bit bigger.

this obviously has the makings of a real flame war.... personally I
have used the XA for 6 years or so, mainly without the flash and
often carried in a small top pocket. The lens quality of pretty
repsepctable - my photographs (KR 25) have been published in a range
of magazines both specialist and general interest. I could not
really comment on the flash - I use one so little, but I do have an
XA3 as backup....

Richard


-- 
    ,_~o    Richard Taylor             email : rwt@uk.ac.york.ohm
  _-\_<,    CSEG, University of York   tel   : (44) 904 432351
(*)/'(*)    Y015DD, England            fax   : (44) 904 432335
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Metz 45's, Warning from Bogen re turbo batteries
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:19:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.153501.14372@samba.oit.unc.edu> rslugg@med.unc.edu (Robert Slugg) writes:
>I just picked up my 45ct4 this morning from the repair shop.  One of the
>problems was a capacitor not taking a full charge.  With the flash was a
>note from Bogen stating that the use of quantum turbo or similar high
>voltage batteries could damage the flash and thus voided the warranty.  I
>use an amatar procycler, and the flash was no longer under warranty so it
>was basically $50 out of my pocket for the repair plus a weekend rental of
>a lumedyne to shoot a wedding.  In response, I sent a letter to Bogen and
>a carbon copy to "Professional Photographer" asking why high voltage input
>pins were on the side of the 45 series flashes were they not to be used in
>that fashion, and if the deception that it was OK was carried out by
>Quantum etc, why hadn't Bogen in the last 5 years brought it to everyones
>attention.  I decided to buy the Metz because I ttt
>thought it was compatible with the procycler.  I really don't expect much
>to happen, like PP is going to publish my letter and piss off a major
>advertiser ;-), but I at least can bring this up with the net as a problem
>that exists.  I discovered the problem with the Metz at the beginning of a
>wedding processional and I pointed out to Bogen that I'm more than just a
>little bait shy about wanting to use the Metz in that role again (it was a
>really unpleasent experience that I hope I never have to re-experience).
>
>Bob

I have never used the METZ flashes so I have no experience in
that department.  I do have about 6 years experience using
the SunPaK 622 PRO flash system with the Quantam Turbo Battery
(I use two Turbo's) for the same amount of time. I have NEVER had 
any problems.  Perhaps you should switch brands.  I did a few months 
research before I bought my SunPak and even though I have never used
the METZ flashes, everything I read led me to purchase the 622 PRO
over the METZ 45 series flashes.  IMHO the 622 PRO offered more
functionality, i.e., power ratio down to 1/128, more aperture
range (f/22-f/2?) and the 622 has a series of changeable flash
heads to "customize" to your needs and of course the major
dedicated modules for camera/flash use.

On another point.  Bogen should have back up their equipment.
I thought Quantam is owned by Bogen now.  The Quantam specs
state which major brand flashes one can use with the Turbo's.
It would seem to me that this implies some type of responsibility 
on their part also. (JUST MHO.)
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
From: andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:21:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

| 
| In my dictionary (Websters) a professional is defined as:
| 
| (one) participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of
| endeavor often engaged in by amateurs.
| 
| Seems like that covers what most of us mean by professional doesn't it?
|  
| ===============================================================
| Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
| ===============================================================

Bob,

I am sure glad you found that definition, because it certainly explains the
current state of the medical and legal "professions". :-) :-)

(potential flamers, please note the "smileys"!)

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    % Andy Cassino                                       %
    % Hewlett-Packard - Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: E-6 in Jobo
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:14:17 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <3090@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:

> 	Does anyone know what the correction factor is for doing E-6
> in a Jobo?  I seems to remember 80% of recommanded development time
> is the correct compansation for continious agitation in a Jobo.  The
> Kodak hobby pack didn't give any correction factor and Kodak won't
> tell me over the phone either.

The E-6 kit that I use (Tetenal, 5 liter package) says that I should use
6 minutes and 15 seconds in a rotary processor like the Jobo and 7 minutes
otherwise at 38C. I don't care much for the Kodak Hobby-Pak. The colors
tend to be too much yellow, and the prices for Kodak's E-6 kits are, at
least here in Europe, a bit too high. The Tetenal kit is dead-on.

Just remember -- be very careful at cleaning the processor after you've
finished processing one drum, even if you intend to process another one
directly thereafter. I use to flush the processor's chemical channels with
around 5 liters of water. If you don't, the next set of slides will come
out with a cyan cast due to the change in alkali introduced by remaining
bleach fix in the chemical channels... I found that one out the hard way.

One more thing: Don't pur the stabilizer into the processor! You'll have
a hard time cleaning up afterwards so that future processing runs won't
be contaminated. I rinse the film for 30 minutes in 35C water after the
bleach fix, then pour 1 liter of stabilizer in a small plastic bucket
(don't inhalate the fumes from the stabilizer). I carefully release one
film at a time from the reels and put it in the stabilizer for at least
one minute. I then wipe it off and hang it to dry just like with b&w film.
Now, was it the Kodak Hobby-Pac that didn't include a stabilizer at all?

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Subject:  Rodenstock Omegaron lens question 
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:18:40 GMT

        I've just picked up a Rodenstock Omegaron (sp?) 135mm f/4.5 enlarging
    lens.  It didn't come with a retaining ring and I think I know why.
    The threads are "funny", by which I mean it appears to be the
    semi-standard 39mm Leica thread, but on closer inspection, is a finer
    pitch than that.  I attempted to use a standard ring but could only
    thread it about 1/2 turn.  I checked the threads out and they haven't
    been crossed.  The same ring works just fine on my other two lenses.

    From the name, I assume this lens was produced specificly for the
    Omega's.  Has anyone else run into this, and if so, how did you end up
    mounting the lens?  As it is, I'm trying to mount the lens on an old D2
    Omega.

    Thanks
    Jim Feldman
From: watters@darwin.genetics.washington.edu (Mike Watters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: ENLARGING 35mm/Med.format/other
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:16:53 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

In article <16832EFAD.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU> VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>I am not a professional photographer.  I wouldn't even call myself an
>amateur.  So consider this when reading this article.
> 
>I want to make really big blowups of pictures.  I believe it is my calling
>in life.  After reading some people's opinions about 35mm, I would assume
>that 35mm is not the way to go if I want nice looking pictures larger than
>8" by 10".  So then I got to thinking of investing in a medium format
>camera.  The prices are mostly out of my "just-for-fun" range.  Yet, how
>large can you enlarge the various medium formats before your pictures look
>really bad?  Specifically, I was thinking of the rangefinder 6 cm by 9 cm
>that Fuji makes.  It would probably work for taking landscapes and city
>skylines, don't you think?  Or do I need yet a larger negative to make the
>nice looking poster size shots?  The Fuji would be in the right price
>range for me, yet will it be enough?  Would I wish that I had gotten an
>interchangeable sytem (with lenses that cost over $1000 a piece)?
> 
>Simply put, I want to take landscapes and city skylines and make poster
>size prints of them.  Does anyone have experience with this type of
>photography?
> 
>I know this question wasn't well stated but any help/comments/suggestions
>would be appreciated.
> 
>Rick Marquardt

Have you considered some vintage equipment?  A decent 10 - 20 year old
TLR (Something like a Minolta Autocord or Yashica TLR) could easily be
gotten for under $200 (probably under $100 if you look).  Gets you into
medium format for no more than the price of a cheap 35mm camera.

If you wanted to go bigger still...
	Try one of the old Graphlex press cameras.  You can get in the door
REAL cheap and go out and buy newer and better lenses if you get into it.

Personally, I was lucky enough to find an old Richoflex TLR at a camera 
flea market for $20.  Needed to have a couple screws tightened but other
than that was in great shape.

mike

--
Mike
watters@genetics.washington.edu
Dept of Genetics, Univ of Washington  Seattle
(d) 206-543-1934   (e) 206-361-1156 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs)
Subject: Re: Focal length rip-off. Coincidence?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:23:10 GMT

>Have you ever put a ruler to a 2 by 4?
>I think they call it a nominal dimension!
>
I call that useful piece of lumber a 4 by 9 (4 cm x 9 cm).
(I do get some strange looks when I ask for a 4 x 9 at the lumber yard.)
Measure one and see for yourself.  VERY close.  ('Course I do most everything
else in Metric too.)

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

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sttay@athena.mit.edu (Stephen T Tay)
Subject: slide dupes
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:12:47 GMT

hi everyone, 
i read in the nikon system book by moose petersen that to make high quality slide
dupes, one needs to `flash' the dupe film after the normal exposure. would really
appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me on what this technique is all about.
what is the protocol, and can this flashing be done on a bellows setup (with
slide copier)?
thanks and regards
stephen