HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham)
Subject: candids
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:06:44 GMT

I have to take candids for the university yearbook and I need advice on how
to get good shots. I will be buying a x-300mm for my EOS 650, so that should
help in that I don't have to be in a person's face to get a nice close-up.

I think that I may be overly polite for this kind of thing. Should I ask
people before I take a shot? Tell them what it's for? 

Ugh....I guess that it all depends on the situation...right now I am shooting
at 1600 so I won't need a flash indoors (some of the time). Hopefully the
photos won't be too grainy. 

So all I am going on right now is: fast film, long lens. 

Here are 3 situations - what would you do to get a good candid shot?  :

1) someone is in the library studying like a maniac (small, open cubicle)
2) a group of people are eating in the caf.
and 3) your prof is lecturing.

Any help would be GREATLY app'd!!

mike the timid
-- 
**************************************************************************
Bjork sounds so good, that if I were a singer trying to make a living today    
I'd shoot myself in desperation of ever equalling her  -  Barbara Ellen, NME
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sikorski@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward M. Sikorski)
Subject: Kodak PhotoCD in MAC IIvx
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:32:19 GMT



Can someone provide me with info regarding the Kodak PhotoCD format?
I am acquiring a MacIIvx with the PhotoCD compatible drive and need to
know if Kodak processes E-6 slides and will transfer them to the CD. If
The PhotoCD is not limited to 35mm print negs, what the aspect ratio is
of the image. And if the MACIIvx imports the image directly in without
a scanner (slide or flat copy). I guess info on Kodak contacts and 
Apple Image specialists would be helpful.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: Resolution of Lens ???
Reply-To: jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 02:54:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.192154.236@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
>since the resolution made by the latter technique is also influenced by the
>film resolution (and maybe by camera shake!). This is clearly seen by the fact
>that it is almost impossible to get more than 100 lp/mm when testing any lens
>using normal film (including K25, Velvia, or Tech Pan), wheras almost any
>lens shows higher resolution than this in the film plane. I have a 500mm f5
>that clearly resolves over 250 lp/mm in the film plane and yet I have never
>measured better than 80 lp/mm on film (Velvia), despite using the bigest
>tripod I can carry (Bogen 3051) and mirror lock-up.
>
Indeed, I found the film resolution to be the most limiting factor in most
cases. However, I don't think 100 lp/mm is hard to achieve. With a good 
microscope (not those found in Toys'r Us), TMAX-100, and well saturated 
exposures, you should be able to resolve close to 125 lp/mm.

Jason Chen 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: man@labrea.zko.dec.com (Richard Man)
Subject: Olympus lens for sale and wanted
Reply-To: man@labrea.zko.dec.com (Richard Man)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:10:48 GMT


	Zuiko lens:

	65-200 f/4		$150
	135	   f/2.8	$120

	Prices are firm.

	I am looking for 80, 90, or 100 mm macro Zuiko lens.
--
- Richard F. Man (man@labrea.zko.dec.com)
"Small Rovers, Big Dreams"

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: candids
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:45:43 GMT

In article <BxuGv9.I23@cs.dal.ca> graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham) writes:
>I have to take candids for the university yearbook and I need advice on how
>to get good shots. I will be buying a x-300mm for my EOS 650, so that should
>help in that I don't have to be in a person's face to get a nice close-up.
>
>I think that I may be overly polite for this kind of thing. Should I ask
>people before I take a shot? Tell them what it's for? 
>
IMHO, why does it necessiate purchasing a long lens for candids?
You state you are part of the yearbook staff, which should give you
some type of "license" to freely take pictures. I personally find
the regular, standard, 35mm lens ideal for candids. You not only
will get superb depth-of-field, but you can use the lens in
tighter quarters. The 300mm lens will require a tripod, so it
seems, plus you lose depth-of-field. If you want "nice close-ups",
then I would opt for a plain old 100-135mm range lens, and
preferrably a zoom lens at that.
>
>Ugh....I guess that it all depends on the situation...right now I am shooting
>at 1600 so I won't need a flash indoors (some of the time). Hopefully the
>photos won't be too grainy. 
>
I personally do not see the point in shooting with fast films beyond
1000 ASA. You can get away with shooting 400 ASA in a library (with a
regular tripod or table tripod). You must understand that the
typical scene in a library is not one of "ACTION" so much. Yes,
your photos will be grainy shooting 1600 IMO.
>
>So all I am going on right now is: fast film, long lens. 
>
Not necessary IMO, for reasons already stated.
>
>Here are 3 situations - what would you do to get a good candid shot?  :
>
>1) someone is in the library studying like a maniac (small, open cubicle)
>2) a group of people are eating in the caf.
>and 3) your prof is lecturing.
>
Shoot with a 35mm lens and shoot with 400 ASA FILM. :-)
>


-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: Backwards lens compatibility (was Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science
	<1992Nov17.204831.5560@crd.ge.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:43:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.204831.5560@crd.ge.com> kassover@rumsey.crd.ge.com (David Kassover) writes:

>In article <PD.92Nov17105403@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>...
>>
>>I don't think it's such a big deal though. I didn't choose any of the
>>above brands when I bought into an AF-system. I didn't buy an AF-camera
>>to use old MF-lenses.

>Ah, but suppose one wanted to buy a new camera body, and didn`t
>particularly care about AF  (or specifically didn't want it).
>What are the choices these days?

The choices are still quite many, but getting fewer. If you
specifically don't want AF the question about backwards lens
compatibility becomes moot, since you don't need (or want) AF lenses
in that case.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: Backwards lens compatibility (was Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science
	<1992Nov17.211704.9310@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:14:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.211704.9310@odin.corp.sgi.com> bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers) writes:

>In article <PD.92Nov17105403@horus.sics.se>, pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>|> No, you can't mount a twenty year old Nikkor on a Nikon camera made
>|> today. Chances are you'll damage the camera, and the meter just won't
>|> work since modern Nikons don't have the mechanical coupling.

>WRONG.  The F4S supports the physical mount of ANY lens which fit
>onto an old "F".  I have both bodies and lots of OLD non-AI lenses.
>Sure, you may lose metering functionality but the optics still work.

Sorry, I should have written "on _any_ Nikon camera made today". In
any case, the F4 is the only Nikon AF camera on which you can mount
any old Nikkor lens, but not always with all of the functionality of
lens still working.
I still think Pentax has done a better job.
And I still don't think it is such a big deal. It certainly isn't
anything worth considering for someone deciding from scratch which AF
camera to buy. Even for someone owning a MF Nikon, I don't think it
should be the major factor in the decision.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: parsons1@applelink.apple.COM (Don Parsons)
Subject: Re: Changing N8008 for the new Canon?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:36:44 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Nov16.090512.15805@sequent.com>, blue@sequent.com (Gil Delavous) writes:
> 
> Does anyone bought the Canon? What do you think about it?
> BTW, is Canon better or worse than Nikon about the lenses, in general?
> 

I'm a Nikon shooter, but I have seen results from rigid testing done by
George Lepp. Nikon's and Canon's best lenses seem to have very similar
optical quality, but Canon seems to have more lenses with very high quality
optics than the Nikon line. George shoots both Nikon and Canon, but is primarily
a Canon shooter. However, my impression of him is that he would not let this
bias his findings, so I expect his findings are valid.

(Personal) observations I have made regarding Nikon vs. Canon that you
may want to consider include:

* Canon bodies are less expensive than comparable Nikon bodies and have
  more functionality.

* Nikon lenses, on average, are less expensive than comparable Canon EOS lenses.

* Canon offers a better lens selection.

* Canon EOS lenses can also be used with the L1 camcorder.

* Canon bodies and lenses are lighter. It is my understanding this is because
  Canon uses more plastic. This can be good, and bad.

* Nikon seems to have better durability.

* Both are great from the stand point of being able to find after market products
  that are designed to be used with each.

* Prior to the N90, Canon bodies typically had numerous special AE program modes
  (portrait mode, landscape mode, silhouette mode, etc.) that I would rather trade
  for other features. It seems that maybe Nikon is going that direction too.

* Nikon support is good. Nikon service is poor. I can't comment on Canon's.

* I think all Canon EOS bodies (I'm not sure about the EOS 1) use the lithium
  batteries. While the N8008s, N90 and F4 use AA batteries. This little feature
  should not be under estimated.

I think both lines are VERY good, and I don't think you can go wrong either way.
Each has their strengths and weaknesses. I personally chose Nikon, and currently
plan to stick with it.

Don Parsons

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 18:14:12 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Subject: Re: The color developer in the E-6 process
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Keywords: 

| : > (There is no way I'm going back to a formaldehyde-rich stabilizer
| : > --- yeech!)
| : 
| : The Beseler kit had a formaldehyde-based stabilizer---does
| : formaldehyde really have a stench?  It may be just me, but I didn't
| : smell anything in particular.  Or is the "yeech" for the toxicity?
| 
| I was referring to the toxicity.  As far as I know, it does not have
| a smell.
| 
| Jay Ts


Didn't you guys ever take a biology class and have the joy of dissecting
a formaldehyde-saturated frog or worm or cow's eye or other type of
beastie?

At least I *thought* the stench was from formaldehyde used to preserve
the little darlings....

Geoff ``Scalpel, please...  Bwahhhhh-haaa-haaa-haaa-haaa'' Allen

-- 
Geoff Allen          \  Macintosh Old-Fart Memory #207
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \       Macintosh File System
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ptse@bcars65b.bnr.ca (Paul Tse)
Subject: Re: Need help selecting a truly compact camera
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:13:52 GMT

In article <1e3j2uINN108@crcnis1.unl.edu> sanjiv@cse.unl.edu (Sanjiv K. Bhatia) writes:
>
>I am looking for an extremely small compact 35 mm camera.  The ideal camera
>will have all the auto features (focus, wind, rewind, flash) and be small
>enough to fit in the palm.  The closest I have come to finding one is the
>Olympus Stylus.  However, I am sure I can get better than that.  I'll limit my
>budget to about $300.  Suggestions please.

Take a look at the Yashica T4.  Same size and comparable features.
Has a Zeiss T* lens (ooh!  :)
From: sh09@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEVEN HIGGINS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: FM & FE + MD11 or MD12
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:07:42 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov17.152446.25970@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, eugene@briar.lle.r
ochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk) writes:
>
>Paul Rubin writes:
>
>> Don't use an MD11 on an FE2.  It will fit but the meter batteries will
>> go dead if you forget to turn it off.  You need an MD12.
>> The MD11 also works with the FM, though.
>
>The MD12 drains as much as the MD11, and that's after two trips to Nikon.
>
>I use the MD12 and MD11 with FM, FE, and FE2 (oops, I forgot I traded in the
>FE for the Elan), and I make sure I use NiCds.
>
>In some situations, the camera battery lasts 48hrs, sometimes more,
>depending on whether there's a visible light-blocking filter on the lens.  The
>drive's batteries are changed after 24 hrs, mostly because of the slow
>(2-4s) exposure.  I use a UV transmitting filter, and of course the
>fluorescents in the room will set off the meter and leave it on.
>
>If you turn on the drive's power, the camera's meter goes on and stays on.
>It's only if you leave the drive's power off, and turn on the camera's meter
>that it powers itself down.
>
>
>eugene kowaluk
>

    I was under the impression that the MD-11 was specifically designed for
    the FM, and that leaving the camera's metering system on while the drive
    was attached, and switched on, was no big deal because the FM uses LEDs to
    show exposure info and they have very low current demands..

    Using an MD-11 on an FE or FE2 is possible, but will drain the camera
    batteries whenever it is switched on.  I know, I have one (can you say
    OOPS???).  I bought mine at a camera show flea market before I knew that
    the MD-12 was the one I really wanted.

    Thought that the MD-12 fixed this problem with the FE/FE2 while retaining
    compatibility with the FM and FM2.

    Anybody else care to clear this up????

    By the way...If anybody needs an MD-11 (for an FM/FM2???) I know where you
    can find one....    :-)

    Regards,


    
-- 

~Steve
sh09@lehigh.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Depth of field equations
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:13:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Nov17.171433.10861@cello.hpl.hp.com> 
jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson, I) write:
>Adams' formula is exact, even for macro work, under the following
>conditions: 
>
>1.  The circle of confusion is small compared with the aperture.
>(Almost always true.)
>
>2.  You are not doing macro work OR the diaphragm looks the same size from
>front and rear.  (Usually true.  The diaphragm on ultra-wide angle
>lenses often appears to be different from front and rear, but you
>would seldom use such a lens for macro work.)
>
>3.  You interpret f as the *effective* f-stop, in other words, it is
>already corrected for bellows factor.
>
>4.  The subject distance is measured from the front *focal* point.
>That is one focal length in front of the front nodal point.  (You can
>find it by turning the lens around and observing where the image of a
>distant object is sharp.)  Most physics texts display formulas
>assuming distances are measured from the nodal points.  The focusing
>scales on most cameras are calibrated from the film plane.
>
>  -- David Jacobson

Clause 2 should be deleted.  There is an effect called pupil
magnification.  It causes the diaphragm to appear to have a different
size from front and rear.  This is often seen in wide angle lenses.  I
had once seen a formula for bellows correction of depth of field or
something like that that worried about it, and I mistakenly thought it
mattered here.  But I worked out formulas that included pupil
magnification and discovered that if you use effective f stop, as
required by clause 3, pupil magnification doesn't matter.

  -- David Jacobson
From: steveh@pilot.dmg.ml.com (Steve Hannoford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re:  _Consumer Reports_ believable on cameras?
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:30:42 GMT
Organization: Merrill Lynch Debt Markets Group

>Do people with real knowledge of
> cameras think _CU_ does a good job?

My opinion on CU and any review or rating agency is that
they have a good grasp of general, layman needs, and provide
reasonable information about lots of products and their
durability, reliability, lists of features, etc.

-- They drop a camera over and over until it breaks, then
    tell you how many impacts it took to destroy it.

-- They put it in a machine that continually fires the
    shutter until it stops working.

-- They shoot focusing patterns and compare sharpness of
    lenses.

They can do all sorts of tests like this, and then compare
 the results from one make and model to the next.

BUT - the employees at these places are usually the testers, 
 and they test many or all of the products.  None are experts
 in any particular area.

They don't take the camera out on assignment and try to get all
 the shots they need, in the time allotted.  They don't deal with
 panic situations, varied lighting conditions, and the like, which
 IMHO is what I would want to know about when chosing equipment.

I'd read the reports for their general comments and preferences,
 but I would rely much more heavily on the comments from those
 experienced with the specific equipment I was interested in
 before I made a decision.

I prefer real life experiences, related by real users, and I  
 like pro and con stories. 

I posted a request for info on F4 vs. 8008 and got tons of varied
 responses stating preferences of F4 vs 8008 and why the person
 had that preference - If the issue was not of concern to me then
 I ignored it.  (For example:  High price was cited by many as a
  reason to NOT buy F4 - where price was not a consideration for me).o

CU would probably rate these cameras as being nearly equal in quality.

I guess it boils down to me thinking that CU rates quality and reliability
 and compares features - they lack information on real life application 
 and ease (or lack therof) of use.

-- 

+-------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| steveh@pilot.dmg.ml.com | My employer has no opinions and has  |
| Steveh Hannaford        |  nothing to do with anything I say.  |
From: jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Changing N8008 for the new Canon?
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:51:39 GMT
Organization: ISC - Bunker Ramo, Spokane, WA

In article <1992Nov16.213611.7782@gallant.apple.com> parsons1@applelink.apple.COM (Don Parsons) writes:
>* Canon offers a better lens selection.

Who'd-a thunk it!

>* I think all Canon EOS bodies (I'm not sure about the EOS 1) use the lithium
>  batteries. While the N8008s, N90 and F4 use AA batteries. This little feature
>  should not be under estimated.

EOS-1 with the power booster (faster winder) uses AA.  Otherwise, 2CR5
(including the EOS-1 _without_ the winder). 

-- 
+----------------+
! 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.
From: jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Konica Infrared 750 B&W Film
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:52:00 GMT
Organization: ISC - Bunker Ramo, Spokane, WA

In article <1992Nov18.211659.18435@tandem.com> castellano_joe@Tandem.com (JoeCastellano) writes:
>I been told that Konica's Infrared Film is easier to use
>and process that Kodak's 2481?? Is this true ??

Well, Konica's film is a lot less sensitive to IR than Kodak's, so that
makes it easier to handle.  Of course there is the obvious drawback... 

-- 
+----------------+
! 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.
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Best price for Canon Elan?
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:51:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov20.162139.9515@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
> 
> 
> >Note that 47th street photo charge 5% of order for shipping. This isn't
> 
> 
> For those people who think that shipping and handling charges in New
> York City are unreasonable, you may consider the option of coming into
> town and buying in the store  --  and paying 8.25% NY sales tax.
> 
> Assuming that you are not otherwise victimised by tolls, parking fees,
> parking tickets, broken car windows/stolen radios, stolen wallets,
> stolen cameras in shiny pink 47th St. Photo shopping bags that mark
> the tourist shopper as an easy sucker, or maybe just a plain old knife
> in the belly, the local sales tax alone should convince people that
> mail order has it's benefits, even if it has it's drawbacks, as well. 

No-one will deny the advantages of NOT shopping in NYC, but the point was
that to charge 5% or total order (and write it in the smallest print
available) seems to be a practice designed to (effectively) inflate prices.
A fairer practice is to charge some handling fee + shipping based on weight
(as do B&H for example). ALL the NYC stores tag on a little profit in their
shipping charges - some more than others. Either way I will agree that it is
MUCH better than actually shopping in NYC though.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: hship@sw.stratus.com (Howard Ship)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Minolta Color II & Ilford MG III
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:38:36 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: teton.sw.stratus.com

I'm using Ilford MG III/MG III Deluxe, a variable contrast paper with an
old (but in excellent shape) Minolta Color II enlarger.  The info sheet for the
paper lists different filtrations for different contrasts BUT it has three different
sets:  for Kodak, Agfa and Durst.  Which of these is appropriate with my enlarger?

-- 
"I can't believe I had the Anti!"
Howard_Ship@vos.stratus.com