HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Infrared questions
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:59:39 GMT

I have two questions regarding IR film:

1)  What developer should I use?  I have D-76 but a book I have read suggests
D-19.  What differences are there between the two (I am only in the learning
stage regarding film development).

2)  What speed should I rate the film?  The sheet that comes with the film
says 50 but my book says 200 (I'm using Kodak IR film finally; Konica suggests
32 speed).  I want to waste as little film as possible (it's expensive and 
hard to come by) so what would more experienced IR photographers suggest?

Thanks in advance.

  -- Scott
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mcfarlan@aurigaxerox.com (Doug McFarland)
Subject: Re: How big a negative fits in a 23C ??
Reply-To: mcfarland.henr801c@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:22:39 GMT


In article <TONYB.93Jan12152159@ursula.juliet.ll.mit.edu>, tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke ) writes:
|> I own a 23C, with a colorhead.  I currently work in 35mm, but I'm
|> investigating the purchase of some sort of medium format field camera
|> (possibly a Horseman 985) and it has just occurred to me that I don't
|> really know exactly how big a carrier I can fit into the 23C.
|> 
|> So... 6x7 works, but how about 6x9?  What's the absolute max?
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> 
|> Tony


My calumet catalog lists a Beseler 23C rotating Negative Carrier
of 6x9cm (I think the 23 in 23C means 2x3 inches).

-- 

	Doug McFarland

********************************************
        McFarland.henr801c@Xerox.com    
********************************************
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: 'Macro'
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:42:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.125723.16946@sys.sweden.dg.com>, robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:
> In article <PD.93Jan2012035@horus.sics.se>, pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan1.224631.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
>> 
>> >In article <PD.92Dec30212624@horus.sics.se>, pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>>    ...
...
> As I see it, there's no reason to believe that a macro lens should perform
						   ^^^^^
> worse at short distances than at longer ones. Thus, if a macro lens performs
> good at infinity, it should perform at least equally well at the shorter
> distances for which it is designed.
> 

True, but note that the convers SHOULD NOT be true. A true macro lens should be
opimized for a range of magnifications ( and the reciprocal, by reversing ) and
be let fall in a hole over some distance. If it does not give WORSE results
at long distances ( small magnifications ) it was designed in marketing and is
not a true macro lens. I used s set of Zeiss macro lenses that I would kill for,
but focus them on anything at 10M, and you would think it was the worst cheapest
vivitrash crap imaginable.

> As a side note, I first interpreted "useless" above to mean that the
> photographic results from a macro lens that performed well at infinity
> would be so bad at macro distances that they would be useless. Then I
> realised that the intended meaning was for the MTF results...
> 

Sorry, we should all try to be as clear as possible, and keep in mind that not
all readers are fully fluent in english ( let alone which english! )

~Paul
From: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: USM vs. regular lens
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:26:33 GMT
Reply-To: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Fabrice Jaubert writes:

> I'm thinking of buying a 75-300 zoom for my EOS. I can get the regular
> (Micro-Motor?) version, or the USM version for $50 to $60 more.
> 
> Other than the focusing motor, are these lens different? Does the USM come
> with better optics? Otherwise, I think I'd rather save $60 and live with a
> noisier motor - or am I missing something?

The focusing speed of the USM lenses is phenomenal.  I have the Canon
100-300 f5.6 EFL.  As  an 'L' lens I think that its optics are marvelous. 
Certainly my sharpest lens.

But my girlfriend has the 100-300 f5.6 USM.  It's surprising how often I
wish that I had her USM on my camera because my "L" lens just can't
focus fast enough and I'm missing pictures.  Last weekend I was at a cat
show, hanging around the judges and trying to take funny pictures of the
things that they do to the cats.  The hold the cats in amazingly funny
postures and, in general, do things to them that I'm surprised any self-
respecing cat tolerates.  Anyway, I was having trouble getting focused
as quickly as I needed to and asked my girlfriend if she'd like to temporarily
swap her USM for my 'L' and she said "No way, what do you think I am - crazy?"

Barry
--


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | "It's much easier to go to exotic places and | 
| bjs@uts.ccc.amdahl.com      |  capture spectacular scenes than to take a   |
|                             |  spectacular picture of a really boring      |
|                             |  green pepper". - Anthony Tse                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction.  Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions.  Unfortunately, this has been  |
| said of me as well. (I.e.  My statments are mine, not Amdahl's.)           |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: NIKON F2 Lens selection help
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:23:36 GMT

In article <1iqja1INNfq3@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson) writes:

     Non AI lenses can be purchased at very economical prices - if you
     are budget conscious, get them. They were good lenses and they still are,
     if you don't buy one that has been abused. If you buy an F3 later,
     you can use the non AI lenses in stop-down metering mode. If you *know*
     you will eventually buy an F3, you might as well shop for AI lenses.
     On the other hand, if you think you may eventually go for those
     auto focus super electronic whiz-bang cameras, then you won't be
     happy with the AI lenses, either. Put together an F2 system with non AI
     lenses, and hope to sell the works as a package when you move up.
     (That sounds like an order, it was just meant as a suggested option.)

AI and AIS lenses have the coupling prong you need for use with your F2.
E series and AF lenses don't have it but repair shops can add one if
you need it.

Note that a couple AI-coupled meter heads are available for the F2,
DP-11 and DP-12 I think.  One of them has a moving needle display
and one has an LED display if I remember right, but defer to the F2
experts out there.

Note that no current Nikons except the F3 and F4 can mount non-AI
lenses *at all*.  (FE and earlier can).  If you have AI lenses
and want to use them on an FM2, FA, 8008, etc. you'll have to get
them modified to use AI coupling.  You risk damaging these cameras
if you try mounting a non-AI lens.
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikon F3 quirk?
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:05:29 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
: poole@bnr.ca (Thomas Poole) writes:
: : Just after loading a new roll of film the shutter
: : speed will be set to 1/80 until the frame counter
: : reaches 1. Don't ask me why.
: 
: It is to take care of owners who use autoexposure mode.  If you are loading
: film and have the lens cap on, and are in auto mode, the camera will choose
                                                                  ^^^^
Oops, I meant to say "would otherwise"!

: a shutter speed of many seconds (or is it minutes?).  This makes it rather
: time-consuming to advance to frame 1.
-- 
Jay Ts
uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
phone: (813) 979-9169
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: stb@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (becker,sheldon t)
Subject: Re: Blad vs Mamiya (Lenses, Weight, Other)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 14:38:31 GMT
Summary: What I read


I have also been very interested in the question of the relative worth of
the Hassi as compared to other camera outfit combinations.  If you read the
trade papers --- Mamyia appears to have had some level of 
success in getting the pro's to move from the Hassi to the RZ.  At a recent
trade show, Mamyia claimed to have 40% of the Medium Format Market, which
is probably true when you consider their RB is being used in many portrait 
studios.  

Several other questions come to mind that the members of the net may be able 
to answer.  In either case, the Hassi or the RZ, you are talking about a
considerable amount of money ( about half the cost of a new car) -- The 645
format is considerably cheaper and I am wondering if you could accomplish
your goal with this format.    

Also I have heard from my "pro" friends, that the Hassi is very prone to
being "serviced" because of its tight tolerances.
From: gray@cac.washington.edu (Terry Gray)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: In the dark about enlarger
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:12:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1itr1qINNaur
Distribution: usa
Organization: UW Networks and Distributed Computing
NNTP-Posting-Host: shiva1.cac.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan12.014024.20064@odin.corp.sgi.com> donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis) writes:
>
>In article <1ipur8INN4a9@meaddata.meaddata.com>, otto@meaddata.com (Otto
>Burgess) writes:
>|> It is time to make a choice I will be living with for
>|> a very long time.  I have been 'looking' at enlargers
>|> for almost a year now.  I am almost set on the new
>|> Saunders LPL 4500 II - some call it XL.  [...]
>
>Remember that if you buy the Saunders, you are stuck with their
>colorhead for the rest of your natural life -- it can't be changed.
>Maybe you can't imagine ever wanting to replace the colorhead, but
>someday you'll win the lottery, and you'll say "Gee, I wish I could
>replace the colorhead.  But I can't."  Buy a separate chassis and
>colorhead.

This is a valid concern, and one I wrestled with at length before recently
deciding to buy a Saunders 4550-XL.  In the end, two things won me over
to the Saunders:  1) I really liked how it "handled" in terms of elevation
and focus --more so than the Beseler or Omega alternatives, and 2) the
whole Saunders enlarger is less expensive than the color heads alone for
other enlargers, including the 45A.

The engineering on it seems very clean, and very modular.  (In fact, if
someone wanted to build a cold light head for this unit, I think it
would be pretty straightforward.  The lamp house, filter units, and mixing
chamber are all easily removeable.)

In retrospect I'm not 100% certain that the newer 4550 XL is worth $250 more.
It has a 250 watt (instead of 200 watt) bulb, and is alleged to be quieter
due to a better fan muffler, and sticks out 2.5" more.  I took out the
2.5" spacer because I didn't need the extra clearance and wanted maximum
stability.  The brighter light and quieter fan are no doubt welcome, but
one could argue that the older model is a better value.

>|> The Bessler 45VXL is the state of the art from that
>|> old company.
>
>Blech.  Puke.  <etc>

On this we agree.  

--
Terry Gray
 University of Washington
  gray@cac.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: WANTED: carrying strap for bogen tripod
Distribution: usa
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:39:36 GMT

In <1993Jan07.195322.25520@mixcom.com> kkwwkk@mixcom.com (TA Shaw) writes:

>Well I don't have the answer for you, but the straps I
>have seen are not what I want either.  I basically want
>a quick release strap, so when that one in a million
>picture comes by, you know the one of the albino
>crizzly bear, I can snap my tripod out, slap on the
>600mm f2.0 lens and shoot away.

I choose not to follow the directions that come with the Manfrotto
strap.  Instead of looping the strap around all three legs, I just put
the loop around the leg opposite the threads, above the extending
sections.

That way, I don't have to disconnect the strap.  Very handy, and to
make the tripod more stable, I can put some weight on the strap, which
would be dangling under the centre post.  It seems to help the balance
as well.

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|"The Nikon lens owners are more gratingly smug, while the     |
| - | --|__ | Canon lens owners are more verbally abusive." - Tony Arnerich|
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
From: goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Kodak RFS 2035 Film Scanner - Is it good? Is $7194 a good price?
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:32:29 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

In <1icp3mINN883@agate.berkeley.edu> rab@sprite.berkeley.edu (Robert A. Bruce) writes:
>I need to buy a 35mm film scanner for digitizing slides and negatives.
>The Kodak RFS 2035 looks like a pretty good deal, but I was wondering
>if anyone has used it and can tell me what is good or bad about it.

The only scanner I've used is the LeafScan 35.  The Kodak looks pretty
good.  It's very fast for what it does, but it's resolution and color
depth are limited when compared to the LeafScan at a similar price.  I
don't recall the Kodak's color depth; is it 10 or 12 bits/color?  The
LeafScan is 16 with scanning resolution up to 4400 dpi.  Depending on
what you plan to do with it, that may not matter.

If you're not as concerned about ultimate resolution, you may be
better off with the Kodak since it will probably work better out of
the box with a Macintosh.  The LeafScan was designed to be used with a
LeafDesk.  It can be used no problem on a Mac if you get a card for
it, but it is still much faster and easier on the LeafDesk.

I personally think the Kodak is a much better buy than any of the
Nikon scanners.
--
Al Goldis           alan-goldis@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thursday, 7 Jan 1993 15:16:12 EST
From: Damon Kiesow <IO80861@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Mirror_lock Up with EOS 1
 <93006.183235IO80861@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <C0HIt8.LMv@panix.com>

In article <C0HIt8.LMv@panix.com>, youngd@panix.com (David Young) says:
>
>In <93006.183235IO80861@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IO80861@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Damon
>Kiesow)
>writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan6.203331@lprhp3.epfl.ch>, dex@lprhp3.epfl.ch (Christian
>>Decurnex) says:
>>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>How the EOS 1 can lock-up mirror ?
          ^^^^^^^
>>>Christian Decurnex
>>>

>>    Sorry, it can't. <....>
>>
>>
>>    Damon Kiesow / IO80861@Maine / 71131,1635 / 207-581-3059


>You can set the mirror to lock up in self timer mode. use the
>short 2 sec count down. mirror will be lock up first and fire
>shutter after 2 sec.

>I think EOS10, ELAN and A2E can all do this kind of mirror lock
>up.
>
>david young

  Well, I don't know about the EOS10, ELAN or A2E but the EOS 1
  DOES NOT have lock-up as the original poster asked. I even tried
  the self-timer just in case I was mistaken about it.

Damon Kiesow / IO80861@Maine / 71131,1635 / 207-581-3059
From: mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: **Another NEW EOS??**
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:51:38 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <1993Jan8.033857.2795@Happy-Man.com> Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com writes:
>
>		[ ... ]
>
>I'm waiting for it; I have too big an investment in "L" lenses to
>abandon Canon at this point, but their "consumer-grade" cameras
>won't do it for me and they are too dishonest a company to live up
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to their warranty.  [ ... ]
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just out of curiosity, why do you say that?  On paper, Canon seem to
have a rather liberal warrantee policy, particularly where international
service is concerned.  I've never heard anybody on rec.photo complain
about it, which is more than can be said about Nikon's warrantee service.

Mike

-- 
Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             mikec@spider.co.uk
Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
From: sla@mimsy.umd.edu (Steve Armentrout)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Need projector for old Super-8 movies
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:26:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

I'd like to purchase an old (or new, but they are likely no longer 
manufactured) 8mm projector to use with Super-8 reels (circa 1975).
I'd appreciate any information on the matter.  I don't read this
newsgroup regularly, so please email me directly at sla@cs.umd.edu

Thanks in advance,
Steve
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio)
Subject: Re: Mac, of course (Was Re: IBM vs. Mac for stock business)
Summary: Which machine gets neat new graphics software first?
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 20:57:51 GMT
Expires: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 05:00:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Keywords: desktop graphics software
Followup-To: rec.photo

In article <1993Jan9.082057.21933@pixar.com> good@pixar.com (Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage.) writes:
>:
>:The dominance of MAC computers in Image manipulation, is strictly business
>:related, not capability related.
>
>Personally, I use neither for image manipulation, but I happen to know (have
>seen) some very exciting stuff written for the PC (486) by a small company
>founded by Alvy Ray Smith. They don't have it on the market yet (I think),
>but keep an eye out for something from Altamira Software. The problem with
>PCs is not a lack of power.

The problem with PC's is that most people doing a lot of the
programs for them (who do not develop cross-platform) are not
artsy-fartsie enough to produce a decent user interface. Ever
compare TOPAS and RIO with Fractal Design Painter or Letraset
ColorStudio? The original Mac hardware and software design teams
included, among other "artsy" types, artists and even a cultural
anthropologist. Is it any wonder that the Mac user interface is
more friendly than any other? (which is not to say that it can't
be improved). So, I still say that for a photographer who just
wants to get her work done and not fuss with her computer, the
better tool is *probably* the Mac. Not coincidentally, in the
documentation accompanying the original 128K Mac, there is a
picture of a photographer (from the accessories strewn about)
using one. That's why it was called "the computer for the rest of
us." In spite of coming from an IBM background, I have to agree.

Most indigenous people (Natives) I know prefer the Mac, BTW. Does
this tell us something about the early design work on the Finder?

Not even Win3.1 can hide all of the ugliness of DOS.

Victor 8^)
(who uses both Macs and PC's, but clearly prefers the former;
also a Nikon user lusting after Hasselblad and Broncolor gear)

From: barryg@hplsla.hp.com (Barry Gunn)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:40:55 GMT
Subject: Re: OTF Metering Inaccuracies
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

>>I used to own an Olympus OM-4 and have read this on several occasions
>>in different publications. No one mentions, however, that the camera
>>will work just fine if you shoot in manual mode. Then you're using
>>Off The Curtain metering and the films reflecivity (is that a word?)
>>doesn't matter. 
 
>The discussion was about TTL OTF flash metering. You can't do TTL
>flash metering off the shutter curtain, for obvious reasons.
 
Flash? Did someone say flash?
 
>When not using a flash, and shooting in manual mode, you don't use the
>metering cells that meter off the curtain or the film. The manual
>metering cells are separate. (This is how it works on the OM-2, so the
>OM-4 just could be different, but I don't think so).
 
The OM-4 has one metering cell behind the half-silvered mirror, pointing
toward the film/curtain, that it uses for manual, center weighted, spot, 
and flash metering. I think this is also true for the OM-2s.
But now I'm having second thoughts about whether it meters off the curtain,
or if there's a little mirror arangement that redirects the light downward.
No matter, the result is the same.
Another point: when you use the spotmeter in Auto, the exposure is also
determined before the curtain opens, so it will work with these films too.

>The TTL AE system on OM-2 and OM-4 reads the light reflected from the
>shutter curtain *and* off the film. It's just that when the shutter
>speeds are low, most of the light will be metered reflected off the
>film, and when the speeds are high most of the light will be metered
>reflected off the curtain.

 ?

>Since there is a pattern on the curtains which is biased to reflect
>more light in the center, this means that you get center weighed
>metering at high shutter speeds and simple (whatever it's called)
>metering at low shutter speeds.

I don't think this is true on the OM-4 or OM-2s. I think they will do 
center weighted Off-The-Film. But I may be wrong, I haven't used one
in 3 or 4 years.


     _
    [o] Barry Gunn x2281
    /|\ barryg@lsid.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (User Chen)
Subject: Micro-Nikkor-P.C f:3.5 55mm
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson SC
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:57:42 GMT

Recently, I got a chance to collect this unsual lens.  It's
Micro-Nikkor-P.C f:3.5 55mm #77164X, in mint condition.  When I check
the Peterson's Nikon System Handbook on page 139 for the price.  The 
book said its worth about $125 in mint condition.  And the serial #
indicate it's non-AI.  

There is a "Hirsch Photo" on Shutterbug magazine put the advertisement
that they will pay $500 to $1000 for this lens.  

I though f:2.8 should be more demandable than f:3.5.  Peterson's book
doesn't say it's particularly unique.

Does any body on the net can explain this?

I am very curious to hear the answer.

Thanks all.

Eric
Newsgroups: rec.photo