HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Sharpness
Keywords: Sharp
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:11:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsm.1992Nov5.181136.720
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov5.023325.20009@cs.mun.ca>, michael9@cs.mun.ca (Michael Sullivan) writes:
>   This isn't exactly in the FAQ, so I hope someone can help me out.
> 
>   The problem is, my pictures aren't coming out as sharp as I would like.
> Is the sharpness of a photo strictly a function of lense quality?  Or am
> I not doing something quite right?
> 
>   I'm using a Pratika 35mm MTL-5 SLR, with a Tamron 70-210 f3.8, the exact
> model number I am not sure of.

I emailed a reply, but maybe some general comments would be useful:

(1) Most photofinishers turn out prints which are, at best, adequate. More
often they are lousy. You cannot judge the quality of a lens from prints.
You need a first generation image and that means slides. Given good 
technique (see below) ANY lens should give excellent 3x5 or 4x6 prints.

(2) Very few photographers get the maximum performance from their equipment.
If you don't use a tripod it is hard to get maximum sharpness. Some believe
in the 1/focal-length rule (i.e. you can get sharp images at 1/200 second
with a 200mm lens hand held). Perhaps on occasion, with excellent technique,
you can. Most people, most of the time can't. You might get adequate
sharpness for your purposes, but you won't get the best sharpness of which
the lens is capable. At shutter speed less than 1/focal-length most
photographers can forget about sharp images if hand holding a camera with
no other means of support (shoulder stocks or the like).

(3) Most lenses work best closed down a couple of stops. Very few lenses
give really sharp images wide open. I doubt that the Tamron 70-210 is one
of them. Almost all zoom lenses are less sharp at their maximum focal length
than at their shorter settings.

(4) No lens will give a sharp image of everything in a scene (unless you
are photographing a flat object facing the camera). Only objects at a
given distance will be sharp. At other distances sharpness falls off.
This is particularly noticable in close-ups. [Call for a depth-of-field
FAQ file here :-)]. This is obvious to the experienced photographer, but
not at all intuitive for beginers.

(5) There are defective lenses, focusing mechanisms etc. However, usually
the problem lies in (1) or (2) as above. 

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: perkins@stsci.edu
Subject: CANON T70 CAMERA/LENES FOR SALE
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:10:47 GMT

Canon T70 - Auto load, winding and rewinding. 
          - Exposure information displayed in a LCD panel with push 
            button operation.  
          - Three program modes, Standard, Tele, and Wide.  
          - Two light metering systems, center-weight average and 
            selective area metering.
          - FD 50mm f/1.4 Lens (Standard Lens)
          - FD 35-105mm f/3.5 Zoom Lens
          - Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8  Zoom Lens

                       $425.00 

If interested, send E-Mail to STOSC::PERKINS or call 410-338-4419.
From: elau@berlioz.nsc.com (Eugene Lau)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Incredible blue sky
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:54:31 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation

In article <1992Nov9.202041.9908@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>In article <24120@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.031341.8468@umr.edu> tonyp@cs.umr.edu (Tony Phillips) writes:
>>
>>> My question is, how in the world did the photographer get the sky to be that
>>> dark, yet the balloons to be so bright?
>>
>>A polarizing filter will do amazing things to the sky if you're aiming in the
>>right direction with respect to the sun.  Also, where was the picture taken?
>>Could it be the Albuquerque Balloon Festival, by chance?  If so, Albuquerque
>>is at about 6,000 feet elevation and very dry; the sky there is much darker
>>than it is at sea level in damper climates.
>>-- 
>>				--Andrew Koenig
>>
>I have taken pictures (slides) and obtained some very blue skies
>without any polarizers with my 20mm f/2.8 Canon lens. I have 
>also obtained very blue skies using just the plain old
>UV/sky-light filters using my 35mm lens and 24mm lens, all
>shooting with slide file (usually Velvia, sometimes 64Chrome).
>-- 
>  ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@sysengr.pacbell.com	--------	

the balloons were bright probably because the were somewhat backlit.  shooting
the sky at the right angle and altitude, and with a polarizer, can give you
that dark, high-altitude blue.  I've had dark navy blue using just kodakcolor
gold 100.

eugene
From: kting@cse.unl.edu (Kea Ting)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: incident light meters
Date: 5 Nov 1992 05:47:56 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu

jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:

>In article <nv#q4pb@lynx.unm.edu> collier@atlas.titan-abq.com (Michael Collier) writes:
>The new IV F (?) is also a great choice, not as expensive, and

        ^^^^^   It is Minolta Autometer IV F, it is a new meter that 
replace the Minolta autometer III F. 

>does not have ALL the functionality of the IV, but will offer you
>alot of practical functionality. It however will serve most shooters 
>very well.

>For a basic flash meter, the Minolta III F ( I forget the exact description) 
>will also measure FLASH. I would recommend it if money was a problem, and
  
    Check out the mail order price, the Autometer III F price is very close 
to Autometer IV F. I will rather get the Autometer IVF. The one thing that
IIIF do not have is flash metering with sync cord, which is usefull in the
studio flash metering.
    By the way, I do not have either III F or IV F, I have a sekonic L 328F.

     Hope this help.
p.s - you might want to take a look in Photographic october 1992 issue,
there is a review on meters.




--
soon

University Of                  Disclaimer :
Nebraska-Lincoln               I always speak for myself.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: deng@pele.cs.unm.edu (Deng)
Subject: Re: Tamron 35-105 f2.8
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of New Mexico
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:03:02 GMT

In article <BxI4Ao.Cpy@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com> bob@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com (Bob Easton) writes:
>Christian Bauer (bauer@informatik.uni-ulm.de) wrote:
>: Have such a lense on my Contax 167. Quality compared to the Nikon 35-105
>: is better. compared to a Zeiss 28-80 is a little bit less. But the point
>: is the 2.8 in contrary to other manufacturers. 
>: 
>Christian,
>
>Does the Tamron mount give you the program modes on your Contax, or just
				   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Av and Manual? The reason I ask is because Tamron mounts for Contax
>MM-fit aren't available in the UK, but they seem to be on sale in the
>US. What's the situation in your country?
>
>Bob

yes, Adapter-2 interchangable mount do has a lable "program" on the case.

--Youbai
From: feltman@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Robert Feltman)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:24:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Beseler 23C
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

The 23C will cover 6X9 well. Just make sure to adjust condenser position
and use a lens adequate to cover. 

If you are "shopping" for an enlarger, the 23C (used) is probably the best
bargain in terms of quality/value IN THAT FORMAT SIZE that you will find.

It is very rugged and stiff. I print with one of the earliest versions,
have had to replaace a few plastic parts, bushings etc., but it performs
as new.

Bob
From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 4x5 dups of 4x5 trans
Followup-To: rec.photo
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:28:32
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Distribution: na
	<1992Nov12.185747.17361@adobe.com>
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: zug.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: wtyler@adobe.com's message of 12 Nov 92 18:57:47 GMT


In article <1992Nov12.185747.17361@adobe.com> wtyler@adobe.com (William Tyler) writes:

   There is one other problem. To get sharp focus you need to place the original
   and the dupe with their emulsions touching. But this will give you a mirror-
   reversed dupe. If that's not a problem, go for it.

Do you have personal experience with this?  I know that the base of
4x5 film is pretty thick, but I would have thought a slight loss of
contrast is all that one would experience.  Certainly plenty of photo
labs have screwed up my proof sheets by reversing the film and I never
really noticed a loss of sharpness (not that I scrutinized since it
was just a contact sheet after all).

Thanks.
--

      -- Philip Greenspun

-------------------------------------------------------------
MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
545 Technology Square, Rm 433, Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-8574
From: dbe2@dcs.exeter.ac.uk (David Bennett)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: B/w ? HP5/FP4/Delta/XP2
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:31:42 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK

Newsgroups: rec.photos
Subject: B/w film to use ?? XP2/HP5/FP4/Delta
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Exeter, UK.
Keywords: 

Hi,

I'm interested in the differences in contrast/grain size between
XP2/HP5/Delta.  The primary use for which is for Press photographs for
our weekly student Magazine and RAG (Charity type of thing).
Obviously (?) XP2 is easier for us to get processed in a hurry without
a lot of hassle, but will it produce less contrasty pictures (I do my
own printing - but not developing).  This I would imagine is quite
important for Press release photos.

Any other things I should think of for Press type photos.

(Eqp Canon EOS 100/ELAN w/ Sigma 28-70 Zoom and also a very simple
flash gun)

PS. WHAT is the best way to use this NON-DEDICATED FLASH GUN??
Currently use 60th of a second and set the aperture manually accoring
to distance.  Results vary.

Cheers

DJB
-- 
| JANET  : dbe2@uk.ac.ex.dcs       | "I say what it occurs to me to say when  |
| UUCP   : dbe2@ex-dcs.uucp        | I think I hear people say things. More I |
| Undergrad @ University of EXETER | cannot say." HHGTTG Radio Scripts.       |
| Computer Science Dept. EXETER,UK | by D N Adams                             |
From: weinhous@castor.hahnemann.edu (Martin S. Weinhous Ph.D.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Fair-Value/Price Query
Date: 7 Nov 1992 12:01:10 -0500
Organization: Hahnemann University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: castor.hahnemann.edu

I'm considering selling my old "system" so that I can go out and
buy a new line of equipment.

Suggestions as to the value and fair pricing on the following
items would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

All items are in pristine condition.

  Canon FTb  body
  Canon FTbn body

  Canon	FD	 35mm	3.5
  Canon	FD	 50mm	1.4
  Canon	FD macro 50mm	3.5
  Canon	FD	 85mm	1.8
  Canon	FL	200mm	3.5
  Sigma	APO	400mm	5.6 (Canon FD mount)

  Canon	Extender FD 1.4x-A
2 Canon	Extension Tubes FD 25
  Spiratone Extention Tubes (Canon FL mount) 11mm, 18mm, 36mm
  Canon	Bellows FL
  Canon	Macro Auto Ring
  Canon	Slide Duplicator
  Canon	C-Mount adapter

  Spiratone	 28mm	3.5 preset (Canon FL mount)
  Varexon	135mm	2.8 (Canon FL mount)
  Varimirax 2X Auto Doubler (Canon FL mount)

-- 

Martin S. Weinhous, Ph.D.		weinhous@radonc.hahnemann.edu
Radiation Oncology, MS-102
Hahnemann University 			office: (215) 762 - 8616
Broad & Vine				fax:    (215) 762 - 7683
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1192		home:   (215) 564 - 5986
From: ms5477a@auvm.american.edu (Mathew L. Spolin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Review of film about celebrity photographers (long)
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:06:28 GMT
Organization: Cybervision Productions
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A72468320F019637@cyber.hughes.american.edu>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 9 Nov 92 00:10:42 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

Documentary Review
Blast 

(C) 1992 by Mathew L. Spolin
Stalking the Stars for Fun and Profit
Blast 

Pop!  Pop!  Snap!  With a whir and a dash, Blast 
Blasioli and Robert Garrard take you right into the rushing, shutter
snapping world of the New York paparazzi.
These are the professional sharpshooters, hunting with the auto winding
cameras and the quick recycle flash, seeking the valuable celebrity image
for sale and resale to the hundreds of tabloid publishers worldwide. 
Freelancer Victor Malafronte is the centerpiece of the film as he dodges
bodyguards, fans, and other photographers that stand between him and the
perfect image.
More than a voyeurs delight, the film touches on important aspects of
our image
the mere image of a celebrity a valuable commodity all over the world. 
The film and equipment behind the image seem to  matter as little as the
circumstances of the photo.
Even so, most of the sharpshooters in the film plied their trade with
very advanced equipment.  For budding paparazzi, speed and flexibility
are essential.  Large film magazines, high
focus zoom lenses are the norm among the professional stargazers.  For
the best chance at publication, a slide film offering rich color seems to
be the industry standard.
The most important photographic tool is information.  Although one may
have the slickest equipment, the most powerful flash, knowing where and
when which celebrities will arrive is the key to becoming a successful
paparazzi.  The film documents the tenuous information
crowd of tabloid photographers, yet offers few tips on how to glean such
information.
But the rewards are generous.  One single frame of Michael J. Fox, his
wife, and newborn son eventually reaped over six thousand dollars in
royalties.  To obtain that shot, Malafronte staked out Foxs apartment
building for hours, waiting in a car parked across the street.
Cinematically, the movie is bold and exciting.  Intense rock music
accompanies hand
New York streets.  The sprint through crowds in competition for the
elusive image is the night
treats us to a generous helping of it.  These techniques create an
exciting feeling of being a part of the action.
Much of the on
from the photographers during their off
communicate their thoughts and feelings about their trade.
One of the key questions that the film asks relates to the ethics of
shooting people against their wishes.  Malafronte believes that such
exposure is the price of fame, remarking that he has Uno sympathy for
someone making 20 to 30 million dollars a year.U  
It takes a special, outgoing sort to jump over limousines, crash
banquets, and shout the familiar names of celebrities, competing for that
one golden exposure.  For better or worse, the image market waits to
reward the boldest and brashest camera, the most invasive lens.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: doug@jhawk.b30.ingr.com (Doug Bradley)
Subject: Re: Stained Negatives?
Reply-To: doug@jhawk.b30.ingr.com.
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:08:43 GMT

 [tried to mail but it bounced.]

  your film is underfixed is my bet without seeing it.
  haven't used ilford in quite some time, but do know kodak rapid fix
is diluted by half when used for paper instead of film.  general rule
of thumb is to fix for twice clearing time. you should be able to refix
with no ill effects.
  hope this helps!
doug
"ammonium thiosulfate and be there!" 8-)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor Legvold)
Subject: Re: 120 roll film still used ??
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 13:42:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov05.002932.12099@truevision.com> frank@truevision.com (Frank Loffel) writes:
>goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg) writes:
>
>>[Original query deleted]
>
>>The 120 film format, and its longer derivative 220, are used quite extensively.
>>My personal guess is that usage of this format is second in volume only
>>to 35mm.  Technically, it is known as MEDIUM FORMAT.
>
>>[stuff deleted]
>
>>Within this film size, there are a variety of actual camera formats.
>>Here's what I'm aware of:  6x4.5 cm (645), 6x6 cm (2-1/4" square), 6x7
>>cm, 6x8 cm, 6x9 cm. 
>
>Is it customary to mount slides in these formats? The reason I'm
>asking is that The NewLab does not offer mounting for their 120/220 E6
>service. Maybe there's a good reason not to mount medium format slides?

As far as 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7, the answer is yes.  I have always done
my own mounting so I'm not familiar with what labs do or don't.
There are probably good reasons not to mount them too, but I can't think
of any offhand.  Maybe Mark has some comments (are you there? ;-)...

For projection, Rollei, Reflecta, Hasselblad, and others make 6x6
projectors which accept slides in 7x7 frames (3mm thick) - i.e.
6x6 and 6x4.5.  I don't know if 6x7 projectors exist, although I
would imagine they must.

I would reccommend GLASS mounts, as holding a 6x6 slide flat under
projection is impossible without added support.  Personally I use
Gepe anti-newton glass frames, but that's about all that's available
here and I haven't tried anything else :-)

>
>Do you know a lab that E-6 processes and mounts slides in the 645 format?

Do you really want _all_ your slides mounted???  Are they _that_ good...?
If you are thinking of storage/archiving - I place all my slides in
PVC-free slide pages in a notebook in a cover.  Those that are _good_ are
mounted, & placed in a Journal system holder.  I have all my pictures and
info on a Database, so I know where the neg/slide is, which page, which
notebook, if there are prints of it and how many, as well as a tiff of
the picture.  That way it's easy to find things again, or to show
friends/customers (well, in my case it's mostly friends ;-)

>-- 
>-- Frank Loffel, Truevision, Inc, uunet!epicb!frank frank@truevision.com :-) --
>-- "Shut up and pleasure me!" - Peg Bundy

I have a questoin for the more experienced MF'ers out there.
I buy devolping in 'bulk' at my lab, with a big discount (i.e.
not chemicals, but I buy a sheet of tokens good for so so many
rolls/developings, each roll 'costs' a token.  I save about 33%)

I wonder if it would be cost effective to buy a 220 back and start
using 220 film, since developing costs the same no matter film
type or length.  I'm planning a tour to Egypt for New Years, and
expect to take 40 or 50 rolls of Velvia with me.  If I shot 220
that would be half the cost of developing afterwords...

Does 220 film cost substansially (i.e. 2x) more than 120???

Regards,
Thor
edmtl@alf.uib.no
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Incredible blue sky
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:36:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov9.031341.8468@umr.edu> tonyp@cs.umr.edu (Tony Phillips) writes:
>For those of you who read Popular Photography, look in the newest issue
>at the Kodak Ektar awards.  There is a beautiful picture of some hot-air
>balloons rising over a lake.  Notice the blue sky.
>
>My question is, how in the world did the photographer get the sky to be that
>dark, yet the balloons to be so bright?  I would guess the photographer wasn't
>using a ND grad filter because the balloons aren't darkened.  I've also heard
>that a polarizing filter helps darken the sky, but I havn't ever acheived 
>that startling of a result.
>
>Any insights would be greatly appreciated.


  I have been able to achieve very dark skys with a polarizer.  The
polarizer is most effective when pointed 90 degrees away from the sun
(i.e., point horizontally when sun is directly overhead).

  I have also gotten bluer skys during printing by using more yellow
subtractive filtration (yellow is the opposite of blue).  But this is
more tricky since too much yellow will ruin the color balance of rest
of the picture.  Another method is simply burning in the sky during
printing but I've never tried this before (still a beginner).

  My guess is still a polarizer.
From: sm@cel.co.uk (salim mehta)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: slow sync and red eye on Canon EOS 100 (Elan)
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:09:14 GMT
Organization: Crosfield Electronics Ltd.
In-reply-to: milica@runx.oz.au's message of 5 Nov 92 09:29:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.092944.16891@runx.oz.au> milica@runx.oz.au (Milan Durovic) wrote:
> I have recently acquired a Canon EOS 100 (Elan in USA) and gone to Halloween
> party in Wonderland to take some nice night photos. I have only a built-in
> flash. I wanted to combine flash with longer exposures to include more of 
> an attractive background. Unfortunately, I have found out that I have to make
> the following choice:
> 
> - turn the command dial in the manual mode, pop-up the flash manually, set
>   a longer exposure and take the picure. Slow-sync works fine, and the
>   foreground and background have a good light balance. If you have people in
>   the scene, they'll all have beautiful red eyes, which may suit only
>   Halloween.

The red eye is due to the flash being close to (actually coincident with)
the picture taking lens. The flash light bounces off the retina and shows
red in the picture. The *only* way to avoid this is to use off-camera or
bounce flash.

> - turn the command dial in the programmed picture modes. Now I am able to 
>   turn on the red-eye reduction lamp (which was impossible in the previous
>   case) and have the exposure fixed to either 1/60 or 1/125, meaning bye-bye
>   to the attractive background.

The anti red eye feature tries to "blind" the subject with bright light
just before taking the picture. This causes their eyes to "stop-down" thus
*reducing* (not eliminating) the amount of reflected flash light.

With slow-sync speeds the pre-flash will be separated from the main flash
by such a long time that the subject's eyes will recover ie. this feature
won't work.

One thing you can do without buying any equipment is not have your subjects
*looking directly* at the camera.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salim Mehta                             Phone :  +44 442 230000  x3450
Crosfield Electronics Ltd               Fax   :  +44 442 232301
Hemel Hempstead  HERTS HP2 7RH  UK      Email :  sm@crosfield.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Alt email :  sm@cel.uucp     ...!{mcsun,uknet,uunet}!cel!sm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Large format: roll-film backs compatibility
Date: 12 Nov 1992 04:25:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Buy rthe Calumet C2N 6x7 roll film back.  It fits into any Sinar ( I know,
I use a P2 and used to use them in an F2), gives good film flatness (I have
never had an out of focus frame from mine), and takes 120 or 220 film.

It is also about 1200 bucks cheaper than a Sinar roll back.

brian
Newsgroups: rec.photo