HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sawicki@src.dec.com (Filip Sawicki)
Subject: Needed info on Sigma 90mm macro as a standard
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 16:43:53 GMT

I am looking for a good lightweight standard lens for my Minolta 9000.
Standard means 85-100mm of course (50mm is good for ... well, what?). 
Minolta products (100mm and 100mm macro) are _huge_, to big co carry
around.

   If you have any experience with Sigma 90mm macro lens (in any
mount, with any camera), please let me know. Last issue of PP does not
say to much, and I could't find reviews in other magazines. I am a
poor student, so I have to know what I get for my money.

   How this lens performs at longer distances is my main concern. As
far as I know, real macro lenses used to be corrected for close-ups,
what somehow degraded their quality at infinity. What about Sigma? I
will use this lens for portraits (where color rendition at wide-open
aperture is very important) and for mountain landscapes on slides
(where the resolution does matter).

   Please reply by mail, and on request I will post a summary.

   Thanks in advance.

fi.
From: will@wixer.cactus.org (Bill Staniewicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: fujichrome/ektachrome opinion needed
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:51:23 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications

Let me also recommend the Fuji film. I have heard good
things about both Velvia and Fujichrome 100.
  
-- 
Bill
will@wixer.cactus.org
From: burley@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Photo-CD - THE FACTS
Date: 29 Aug 92 19:34:42 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Free Software Foundation 545 Tech Square Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: jgd@dixie.com's message of 28 Aug 92 20:06:38 GMT

In article <-2dn_pf@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

   After reading all the pinheads flaming away at Kodak in the typical
   Usenet don't-have-a-clue style, I did something really unusual.  I called
   Kodak.  This is something anyone capable of pounding out 11 digits on
   a phone can do.

   Here are the FACTS:

Sheesh, this is the kind of thing that really drives me up the wall in this
newsgroup.

Look, gnu.misc.discuss -- see that name? -- has little or nothing to do
with "facts".  Many of us read this newsgroup to see lots of idiotic flaming
about how free software isn't free, we should boycott the breathing of air
because we boycott Apple and both Apple and mother nature don't provide
source code, and so on.  The _last_ thing we need is for some yokel to go off,
learn the facts, and _then_ have the audacity to post them here!  That tends
to cut off discussion before it gets really interesting.


Oh, and in case any of you didn't really read the above message:

:-)

--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Anyone using Lauder generic D-76 from K&S?
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:07:37 GMT

This question is for Bay Area photographers who develop
their own B&W film:

Does anyone use the Lauder Chemical generic D-76, etc.
that Keeble & Schuchat sells? K&S says it's the same
formula as D-76 (except that it's pre-mixed, which is
very convenient); but at least one other source says
it's not exactly the same and will give different
results. Any opinions?

Information very much appreciated.

Alan
asanders@adobe.com



Xref: sparky rec.photo:15268 alt.cd-rom:2893 gnu.misc.discuss:2844 misc.int-property:912
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:46:27 GMT
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.

In article <1992Aug27.173045.4694@m.cs.uiuc.edu> hasker@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Hasker) writes:
>jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>>>The only people who can read/write the Photo CD files are commercial
>>>vendors who pay Kodak royalties.
>>
>>As an enthusiastic photographer and user who is waiting on this product 
>>with bated breath, I say "who cares?"
>
>Look at what happened with Nintendo.  Nintendo successfully sued people
>who decoded the cartridge interface so they could make and sell their own
>Nintendo-compatible games.  The result is that the price of Nintendo
>games is _much_ higher than it would be if there was legal competition.
>Do you really want to go to Kodak for _every_ image manipulation program?

I think what is being overlooked here is that if there is a real need
for photo-CD that is easily manipulateable, etc., somebody will come
out with a competing format that is not so inscrutable.  Just because
Kodak invents something, it's not locked in stone forever as the
dominant format.  Remember disk cameras?  127 slides?  Flash cubes?
Super-8?  Autographic film?  etc., etc.  For the time being, however,
they developed (no pun intended) the technology, they deserve to
make some money selling it.  I'm not going to give up using Kodachrome,
the Best Color Film In The World, just because somebody can't figure out
how to make black market versions of Kodak's software.  Sheesh.

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      |  "Nylok lock nuts lose their  |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: 75760,1232    | binding strength after 1 use!"|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: john@earlj.b11.ingr.COM (John H. Earl)
Subject: Film recommendation needed
Reply-To: john@earlj.b11.ingr.COM
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:51:33 GMT

I'm going to Europe in October and will be taking my 35 mm SLR with me to
take pictures.  Although I was "into" photography about 20 years ago, I
haven't done much of anything since.  Back then, Kodak was the only choice
for film.  Now there seem to be many.  I'm probably thinking of something
in the ASA 400 range (my 35 - 105 zoom lens starts a f 3.5).  I'm also not
planning on taking a flash because I don't want the added weight.  So
would someone please make a recommendation on what to use?  By the way, I
plan to take prints - not slides - and will probably not try to find some
kind of special lab for processing.

Thanks in advance for the help!

-- 
            ****************************************************
            *    Intergraph        |       John H. Earl        *
            * Systems Product      |      (205) 730-6536       *
            *    Marketing         |  john@earlj.b11.ingr.COM  *
            *  Huntsville, AL      |     Mail Stop: CR1102     *
            ****************************************************
From: david@cerberus.bhpese.oz.au (David Masters)
Subject: Problem with screen slides
Organization: BHP, Newcastle, Australia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:37:29 GMT
Summary: focus problem with computer screen slides
Keywords: depth of field focus

I took a heap of slides of computer screens here at work, and
although the results are generally very good, some of them have
me concerned.

Problem: Focus changes from top to bottom of the screen.
Camera: Nikon F401, used in manual. AF 28-85 Nikon lens.

Before I started I checked in the FAQ to get any tips, and it
suggested < 1/30, a tripod, bracket the shots, and a long lens.

Well, I interpreted a long lens as say 85mm. I have a 28-85 Nikon
AF that I used on the day. Some of the shots have different focus
from top to bottom. I couldn't see this when I was setting up for
each shot. They are in focus in the centre.

Question: What do I do to increase the depth of field here? Use
my 70-210 AF (at > 85mm)  with longer exposures, or use higher 
f-stop number with the 85mm, (and a longer exposure).


Thankyou,
david
-- 
David Masters, Group Leader - UNIX, 
BHP Information Technology, Newcastle, AUSTRALIA.
Internet: david@bhpese.oz.au        	     Phone: +61 49 402132
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: xaks@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Adalma Stevens)
Subject: Leica
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:19:17 GMT

I'm looking for a lens hood for a Leica M2, 2.8, 50mm. Any ideas on what
would fit it?
-- 

Adalma K. Stevens                            Internet:  xaks@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
Assistant Director for User Services         Bitnet:    XAKS@ECNUXA
Educational Computing Network                Phone:     708/534-0200
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rdj@fir18.cray.com (Ralph Jenson)
Subject: Re: Canon EOS Rebel at high altitude and Cold - Problems ??
Originator: rdj@fir18
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:21:56 CDT


In article <1992Aug24.193753.2812@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, rao@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Govindaraju Rao) writes:
> hrvoje@castle.ed.ac.uk writes:
> >Well, my experience comes from COLD Iowa winters. I took some photos
> >while it was -25 to -35C. I didn't see any difficulties. But, usually it
> liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu writes:  
> >>  I'm very tempted to say bull&%$#.  But I've never been to Iowa.  My
> >> lithium battery died when it was not even +25F.  Do you realize how
> >> cold -35C is? 

Well here in Minnesota we DO know how cold -35C is. I also have used my
Canon10s and Rebel in the cold winters (less than -30C) quite well. BUT
DON'T expect the lithium batteries to last very long. I used a battery
pack and adapter from a place called JVB designs. This battery was initially
designed to be used by photohounds to power there flashes. (Quantum equivillent)
John (The J of JVB) built an adapter that replaces the lithium battery and
connects to the external lead acid battery pack. (If you put the lead acid 
pack in a internal jacket pocket it stays warm and you can shoot for hours)

Standard disclaimers...
-- 
Ralph Jenson                                612/683-5776
UNICOS Software Support                Cray Research Inc
UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!rdj              INET: rdj@cray.com
USnail: 655F Lone Oak Drive MS20         Eagan, MN 55121
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mgb@frieda.mitre.org (Michael Butler)
Subject: Photo CD and Cropping
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:24:39 GMT


I wonder if photo CD images will be cropped to television aspect
ratios.  If so, what will be done with vertical compositions?  

The image file format probably allows for any rectangular image, but
the viewing devices certainly won't...  Anybody know how this will be
handled?

-Mike Butler
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Re: Info. about the Sigma 28-70/f 3.5-4.5
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:34:26 GMT

| I have just get a 28-70 mm/f 3.5-4.5 from Sigma and I am  not 
| happy at all about the sharpness of my pictures (I have a 8008s).
| Does this lens has a bad reputation that I don't know?

					-Maurice

Once again, I think the problem lies in putting inexpensive lenses
on expensive cameras and expecting first-class results. The 8008s
is a fine camera, but the 28-70 Sigma is a cheap lens. And the
lens takes the picture! Not even an F4s, not even a $10,000 body
could take sharp pictures with an unsharp lens!

The new 28-70 AF Nikkor zoom is reputed to be a very nice lens, 
and isn't even that expensive (around $250). The difference in price 
would have been well worth it!

I have an 8008s too, and I love it. But if the price of this camera
leaves only enough money for a cheap Sigma zoom, it would have been
better to buy the 6006, or even the 5005, and spend the extra money
on Nikon lenses.
			-Alan


Xref: sparky rec.photo:14998 alt.cd-rom:2803 gnu.misc.discuss:2783 misc.int-property:879
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:43:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Aug27.234356.8735
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <gxcn=#c@lynx.unm.edu> collier@lacerta.unm.edu (Michael Collier) writes:
>
>well, then, this would seem to impact folks like Adobe and Aldus. at
>this point, given the apparently proprietary nature of the file formats,
>can one do anything with these images using, say, Photoshop? i had
>always assumed so, but maybe it isn't true. if not, what good is Photo
>CD (other than as an archival methodology)?

Yes, there is a plug-in for Photoshop that will appear in the "Acquire"
submenu, for selection of images from the Photo-CD that you want to load.
After that, its just another scanned image.  Incidently, the plug-in allows
you to retrieve images in a variety of resolutions all the way up to the
several megabyte original resoution thats on the Photo-CD.

Gary
-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
Subject: Re: Popping slides and curved field lenses
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:24:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep02.045706.19555@truevision.com>, frank@truevision.com (Frank Loffel) writes:
> 
> Why do slides pop when projected (heated up)?

  The emulsion and the backing expand at different rates when heated.  The 
slide tends to curl to the emulsion side, hence the change in curvature.  
Actually, Kodak claims that "Today improved filmmaking and mounts have 
virtually eliminated the tendency of aslide with a cardboard or other 
open-frame mount to pop", so maybe the correct answer to your question 
is, "they don't".  :-)

> Is there a glassless mount that prevents popping?

  Maybe a mount that held the slide under tension would help, but I've not
seen any of these.

> Are curved field lenses designed to correct curvature before or after popping
> occurs?

  Curved field lenses are designed for "the average" curvature.  I assume 
they would have measured a bunch of slides after projecting them a few times.
Note that if you project some of your slides backwards, curved field lenses
give much *worse* results.
  
> When is the slide more curved: Before or after popping?

  After.

> I know that mounting a slide between glass will provide good center to edge
> sharpness with a flat field lens. However, I believe that it's not a good
> idea to mount originals between glass, because they a) get baked quite a bit
> and b) might deteriorate because of lack of air. 

  Collection of moisture is a problem, and also Newton's rings can show
up if you don't use anti-Newton glass.  I've thought about trying a mount 
that has only one sheet of glass (at the back), but haven't experimented 
with it yet.

> The alternative is to dupe
> the originals and project the dupe using glass mounts. Pretty complicated.

  If you're showing them repeatedly and for long periods of time, this
keeps your originals from fading due to projection stress.  But it's
costly.
 
> So overall, my desperate last question is:
> 
> Is there a way to project original slides in glassless mounts with perfect
> center to edge sharpness?
> I'm really tired of viewing my pictures with my thumb on the manual focus
> toggle on the projector remote.

  Perfect, no.  You might try another project, preferably one that doesn't 
get as hot.

-Darrell.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: kting@cse.unl.edu (Kea Ting)
Subject: Re: portrait lenses: 35mm-Format.
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:36:13 GMT

allana@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Allan Armstrong) writes:

>Everyone seems to be talking about portraits with f2.8 or so. I thought
>that portrait photographers bought those expensive 85mm f1.2s and f1.4s
>in order to get shallow depth of field. Is f2.8 really adequate?

    Yes, as long as the back ground is far enought from the subject. I have
a 135mm f2.8, I am satisfy with the blur back ground this lens produce. Sometimethe back ground is not far enought, it show up on the pictures. I wish I have 
a 85mm f1.2 or 1.4, but it cost too much.

--
soon

University Of                  Disclaimer :
Nebraska-Lincoln               I always speak for myself.
From: kchen@Apple.COM (Kok Chen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Leica Lenses
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:40:20 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

bbarton@Ingres.COM (Brian Barton) writes:

>Can anyone recommend a Leica Rangefinder lens that is both a good portrait
>lens and good at macro-focusing?

>I'm looking for something that will do double duty as both a potential portrait
>lens and something for shooting macro-photography (not 1:1 but 1:2 or 1:4 would
>be fine).


One of the sharpest lens from Wetzlar, the old 50 mm f/2 
Dual-Range Summicron should still be available in the used market.
Make sure it comes with the close-up rangefinder adapter.

Lovely lens, heavy enough when mounted on an M3 to do harm when
swung at a mugger :-); although 50 mm is a little short for my
tastes to take portraits with.


Kok Chen, AA6TY				kchen@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:12:17 GMT


As a consumer, it is always your right to *not* buy (unless the product or
service is provided by the government, in which case you are _forced_ to
pay for it, even if it is of no value to you).  That is how the free market
works, and it will be the free market which determines whether Kodak has
made a mistake or not.  If people value their system, they'll buy it.  If
they don't, they won't.  Remember, the concept of "value" presupposes the
answers to "Of value to whom?" and "For what purpose?".  Perhaps you are not
part of the market [segment(s)] for whom Kodak developed this product.
Those who value the product, for the purposes it can satisfy, will buy it
(assuming price <= value to them).  If there are enough, it will fly.  Sit
back and watch.  There are sure to be refinements and enhancements.

-JTT
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: portrait lenses: 35mm-Format.
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:44:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Sep2.124428.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <25961@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, bercov@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (John Bercovitz) writes:
> In article <lakhindr.715366411@bowmore.NSD.3Com.COM> lakhindr@ESD.3Com.COM
> (Lakhinder Walia) writes:
> 
>>1. What is generally the range of a portrait lens' focal length..?
>>   I know 85mm lens is quite suitable for this. How about 105mm or
>>   135 mm.? Of course these lenses will work very well for a studio,
>>   I think, but going towards 135mm perhaps forces the subject to be
>>   too far..! What is your experience in this please..? Would you like
>>   to use 85mm/105mm/135mm..?
> 
> I guess it partly depends on what you mean by portrait.  I like to take
> fairly tight head shots.  For me, the 85mm fl results in something a little
> too "intimate" in the way of a portrait.  The 100mm is just right and the
> longer lenses result in photos which are too removed or distant in the
> feeling they give.  Maybe it all has to do with personal "bubble space".

> John Bercovitz     (JHBercovitz@lbl.gov)
> 
i guess i would tell you to go to the opposite extreme.  i usually take
portraits with my 135mm lens.  It gives me enough room to play with the subject
a little without being right in their face, and also allows for tight framing.  

The reference to ``bubble space'' can be the key i think- several of my
portrait subjects were rather camera shy, and the 135mm allowed me to stay out
of their personal space, which helps a lot.  Probably the very best option
would be to get all three lenses?  (we've all got the money, right?)
 
James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu
From: napier@cs.ucsd.edu (Jim Napier)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Proper lubricants for fixing a camera
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:30:14 GMT
Organization: CSE Dept., UC San Diego



I recently posted a request for opinions about whether I should fix up an old
Canon FTb I have or pitch it for a new system. I'd like to thank all those
(and there were a lot of you) who took the time to respond. Your opinions were
very helpful. The overwhelming concensus was that the FTb is worth fixing up
and that's what I plan to do. The camera however has some problems that caused
me originally to want to discard it which I still need to address. So I
need help with the following-

1) The diaphragm leaves (proper terminology?) in the 50mm lens are stuck wide
   open. I need to clean them and relubricate them with a graphite based
   lubricant used mainly by camera repair professionals. The stuff is supposed  
   to be pretty expensive and only available in much larger quantities than
   I need. What is the exact name of this lubricant and how can I acquire a
   small quantity? Or is there an acceptable substitute that's easier and 
   cheaper to come by?

2) The focal plane shutter is sticking when it fires. This should be easily
   fixed with some lubrication in the tracks where the curtain rides but what
   kind of lubricant should I use?

3) Since I really have nothing to lose I'm doing the work on this myself. I'm
   pretty mechanically inclined and I intend to be very concientious. However
   if anyone has any tips about things to be wary of please send them along.
   Knowing what NOT to do will help me a lot. And if there are any reference
   works you can recommend to look at before I tackle this please let me know.

4) For those in San Diego if you can recommend a reliable camera repair person
   I can contact for help or for a quote in case I decide to bail out on a
   do-it-yourself repair I'd appreciate it.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

-- 
Jim Napier
Systems Administration
Applied Mechanics & Engineering Sciences Dept.
UC San Diego
(619)534-5414
jnapier@ucsd.edu
Jim Napier
Systems Administration
Applied Mechanics & Engineering Sciences Dept.
UC San Diego
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Canon Macro Lens Mount Converter FD-EOS
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:34:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.062814.21841@jyu.fi>, konkkola@jyu.fi (Markku Konkkola) writes:
> Hi!
> 
> Is there anybody, who has some experience with this converter?
> 
> What is focusing range with FD 200 Macro, FD 50 Macro and TS 35?
> (It's extension id 134.93 mm)
> 
> How does this stopped-down metering work? (I have EOS 1 and 10)
> I have heard, that it can't be used with EOS 10, but I don't believe it. 
> 

If you mean the made by Canon EOS-FD converter, I have the Tech note for it
at home and could post it later. I do remember that the 200 f4 macro WON'T
fit. It was them lens I was looking at at the time.

If it is some other makers 'brand-X', sorry... If its a new Canon one, I will
ask tomorrow when I go out there to pick some stuff up.

~Paul
From: mapres@gdr.bath.ac.uk (R E Slade)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Slides to colour print.
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:37:43 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK

This is probably a FAQ, but I haven't seen it asked before!  I need to copy
some colour slides on to print film and would like some advice.  E-mail me
direct and I will post a summary if there is enough interest.

I have access to a slide copying lens to fit my camera and would like advice
on the following:

	o Type of film to use (speed, make, etc.)

	o Light source?

	o Quality of results to expect compared to Cibachrome.

	o Metering.

and basically anything else which is relevant!

	Thanks for any help,
		Robert.
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property