HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cj531@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ali Momeni)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: EOS grips (G-10...G-70), help!
Date: 8 Jan 1993 22:48:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Hi all,
	I need a grip for moy EOS 630 so I can hook up a remote.  I know
that a G-20 will work.  Does anyone know ANYTHING abouth the other ones?
What is their purpose?  What is different about them>  Which should I get?

thanks, ali.       momeni@vu-vlsi.ee.vill.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Marg_Meikle@mindlink.bc.ca (Marg Meikle)
Subject: The Rabbit Ears
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:21:30 GMT

Does anyone have any notion of the history of the stupid rabbit ears (v-sign,
peace sign)  above a person's head when they are being photographed.  This is
one of those stupid dinner party conversation topics  but one really wonders.
Did this start to show up at one time,  was it a quickly spreading fad, does
every child of six do it as a hilarious joke,  can we find this charming
effect in photographs of the early part of the century?

Thanks.
From: shekhar@sinai.pilgrim.umass.edu (Ajay Shekhar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Some very BASIC questions.
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:11:29 GMT
Organization: "Project Pilgrim, Univ of Massachusetts, Amherst"

Hi,
	I am trying to learn a bit about cameras/photography, so please
excuse the naivety of the following questions. Could some one please
explain the meaning of the following terms ::

* Interval Timer
* What does "with GR20" and "EL" mean when referring to the Remote feature on
cameras.
* What does "b = M&C, f=M" mean when referring to Material of Body, for cameras
* What does the term Depth Field Preview mean ?

I was looking at the Camera-Feature-List, when I came across these terms.
Since most of you will be knowing the meaning of these terms, I will appreciate
a reply to my e-mail account, to avoid cluttering the news group.
Thanks a lot !!

Ajay Shekhar
(shekhar@cs.umass.edu)
From: alexm@nmr-z.mgh.harvard.edu (Alex Milshteyn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Mac, of course (Was Re: IBM vs. Mac for stock business)
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:02:25 GMT
Organization: Mass General Hospital NMR Imaging Center

In article <93007.200852U42075@uicvm.uic.edu> U42075@uicvm.uic.edu (Theodore Stresen-Reuter) writes:
>
>Here is the question: Do you buy an IBM or a Macintosh (or some other
>system) and why?

IMHO, Mac is much better, easier to use.  Macs have been used for image 
manipulation for quite a long time, when PC's could not even handle it.
You have to remember, though, that a computer is not the only thing you
must have if you go into that business.  You will have to buy:
-Mac with at least 20 Mb of memory (the hard drive does not have to be more 
	than 80;
-Optical disk drive and disks - or other long term storage device, and
	rewritable opticals are probably the best in terms of quality (Artecon)
	and value.
-Collor scanner with Adobe Photoshop (my choice).  For Photoshop,
	you may want to consider Thunderscan - if you mean image MANIPULATION.
-Slidemaker, or whatever you choose to make hard copies.

>Some things to keep in mind:
>
>You would like to use your computer for image manipulation and for image
>storage purposes.

- opticals will solve the problem of storage and portability

>You have virtually no experience with computers.
>
-Macintosh
>
>Thank you for you consideration,

-you're quite welcome.

Alex
-- 
Alexander M. Milshteyn M.D.   <milsh@cipr-server.mgh.harvard.edu>
CIPR, MGH in Boston, MA.     (617)724-9507 Vox  (617)726-7830 Fax
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: LOVE MY NEW SB-25
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:05:35 GMT
	<1993Jan5.113425.29635@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
	<C0EvDH.Mw7@jrd.dec.com>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <C0EvDH.Mw7@jrd.dec.com> diamond@jit533.jit.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes:

>In article <1993Jan5.113425.29635@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) asks about the Nikon SB-25:
>>How are the pictures different from those from an SB-24?

>Faster fill flash, if you use it with an F-90.  (Grrrrrrr.)

That's a function of the camera, not of the flashgun.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: finger@convex.com (Jay Finger)
Subject: Re: Photographing the TV screen
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 01:52:04 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1993Jan7.152929.43056@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sh09@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEVEN HIGGINS) writes:
>In article <lkn5fbINN1po@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, farmer@cs.utk.edu (SUSAN FARMER) wr
>ites:
>>Is it possible to get a descent picture of a tv screen with a focal
>>plane shutter (Cannon FTb), or should I just give it up and use my
>>Argus C-3 (a leaf shutter).
>
>    Yup, use a shutter speed of 1/30 or slower and it will look ok.
>>
>>Does using Freeze Frame from a videotape make any difference?
>
>    Freeze Frame can allow you to take pictures without blurring.  Just shoot
>    at 1/30 or slower, and use a tripod.
>    >
>>What about holding the camera vertically?
>>
>    Nope.

You need to go a helluva lot slower than 1/30.  At 1/30 you'll get a dim
picture and most likely get a bright band where a few scan lines got
scanned twice (if your shutter is a bit slower than the screen) or a dark
band (if the shutter is a bit faster).  As said in a different posting, 1/8
should work.  I prefer 1/2.

You will also want to turn off *all* other light sources.  If you
tv/monitor has a little power led somewhere you'll want to tape over that,
too.  Of course, how far you go depends upon how good you want the pictures
to look.

jay

-- 
===============================================================================
Jay Finger - finger@convex.com        | Convex Computer Corp
CONVEX System Integration and Support | 3000 Waterview Parkway
Product Specialist                    | Richardson, TX 75080
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: Bargains in Moscow?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:45:39 GMT

From article <1993Jan11.104827.18891@sco.com>, by craig@sco.COM (Craig R.P. Heath):
> 
> mic@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Clarke) writes:
> 
>>The Zenit line of 35mm and view cameras and optics are also inferior
>>to just about anything except a pinhole camera.  Good luck getting one
>>repaired when it breaks, which it will do on about the second roll of
>>film.
> 
> Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I own a Zenit B, which I bought
> second hand for 18 pounds 17 years ago.  It was my first SLR, and I
> used it exclusively until I finally bought a Minolta 5000 (fed up with
> using a hand-held meter, and occasionally forgetting to stop it down
> after focusing) 4 years ago.  The Zenit _never_ went wrong (and I must
> have run at least 100 films through it, mostly colour transparency).
> The standard Helios lens was not perfect - the Minolta gives sharper
> pictures - but you can't touch the Zenit for value-for-money.
> 
>>A Kiev or a Zenit is a conversation piece -- not a camera.
> 
> Well, I still have the Zenit and it still works (the Minolta had to
> be repaired recently), and it may be crude but it has depth-of-field
> preview which my whizz-bang Minoltas don't (I have a 7000i now too).
> 
>>For the same dollar amount you will get a much better camera buying
>>used gear from one of the advertisers in Shutterbug.
> 
> Yeah, buy two used Zenits! ;-)

Yeah, I was tempted to buy a Kiev, even if just for conversation piece.

I think the discrapency (sp?) between the two posters is the fact of 
quality control in Russia (or wherever they are made).  If you get a good
one, then great, else you may get a bad one, then too bad.
From: tavernin@rd1.interlan.com (Victor Tavernini)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Blad vs Mamiya (Lenses, Weight, Other)
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:03:40 GMT
Organization: Racal-Milgo, Sunrise, Florida

Just buy some used Hasselblad equipment in good condition ...
You'll save alot of money, have great equipment, and probably get
some sort of warrantee if you buy from a reputable dealer (not that
you'd ever need it with Hassy equipment :-)

Victor Tavernini
Racal-Datacom, Inc.

tavernin@rd1.interlan.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: GOCH <GOCH@UNB.CA>
Subject: Fuji GW670 tests?
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 12:43:24 GMT

Has anyone seen a test of the Fuji GW670 or 690 rangefinder camera?
I tested the first version of the 690 (the one with an inter-
changable lens) and decided that I got better results with my
Pentax 6x7 with 105mm lens than the Fuji with its 100mm lens. That
was for landscape work on a tripod. I haven't had a chance to try
the newer models. I like rangefinders (I use Leica M-4's), and would
like a walk-about medium format camera lighter than the Pentax.
Any first-hand experience out there? I hate buying blind, and that's
what I usually have to do here in New Brunswick!

Thanks
Myron
From: mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Japanese Equipment Manufacturers
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:00:36 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.


I'm sure most westerners have heard the old stereotype that orientals pronounce
"r"'s like "l"'s and vice-versa.  Well, last week, I was in a camera store here
in Edinburgh talking about Tokina lenses.  The salesman gave me a glossy A4
size foldout brochure from Tokina, describing their lineup.  Inside, it said
(I swear I am not making this up):

       " The AT-X Series ... Lenses that will open up new holizons."

Mike

-- 
Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             mikec@spider.co.uk
Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: umeca80@ps.ic.ac.uk (Bruce Taylor)
Subject: Re: Mac, of course (Was Re: IBM vs. Mac for stock business)
Keywords: image manipulation
Organization: Imperial College Computer Centre
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 10:24:39 GMT

Look if you want to do image manipulation on a computer just buy a Cray X-MP.

Now can we close this *really* interesting thread about "my Mac is better than
your IBM" (or is it vice versa).

===============================================================================
Bruce Taylor                                    Process Systems Engineering
umeca80@ps.ic.ac.uk                             Imperial College, London
===============================================================================
From: Harald.Brandt@eua.ericsson.se (Harald Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Tamron 90/2.5 macro
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:10:40 GMT
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Sweden

In article <1992Dec31.064420.29637@colorado.edu> duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU 
(Li Du) writes:
> Modern Photography tested
>         Sigma 90/2.8, Tamron 90/2.5 and Tokina 90/2.5 in 1989 (June, pp 
50).
>         The test data showed that Tamron indeed had the best resolution 
among
>         the three as a normal shooting lens(i.e. at 1:49 magnification),
>         although the contrast was NOT the best. At macro range, however, 
the
>         Tamron was out performed by the other two. At 1:4, Tamron was 
nearly
>         as good as the other two. At 1:2
          etc etc...

Yes, some lenses are really prone to bad quality at close up. I have many 
times used an old Nikkor 85 mm/1.8 (old, with 'fork' instead of ai) 
together with a bellows for up to 1:1. At f-stop 8 and larger apertures, 
sharpness was really bad.  At 16 it was OK - I acually used for doing 
slide duplicates. (I know that a macro lens would have been better, but I 
did not think it was worth the cost for only that application.)

Now I have a question to you: Why are all macro lenses designed with a 
long 'tube' in front of the front lens?  Why wouldn't a normal lens hood 
be sufficient? And doesn't that long lens barrel make lighting the subject 
more difficult? In my wiew, macro lenses are big, heavy and clumsy, 
something I would hesitate to bring on a longer walk in nature.  If I 
bought a macro lens, it must either be very small (and fairly cheap) or it 
must also be a large aperture lens (to be used when my zoom is too 'slow').

Lastly a comment on the tests in Aktull Fotografi: Although the tests are 
very seriously done at Hasselblad, they do not say anything about 
vinjetting and flare (and various distances as you also have pointed out); 
and it is only one lens!   Have you seen any tests on how consistent the 
quality is from various manufacturers?

/Harald
From: kuusama@kaarne.cs.tut.fi (Kuusama Juha,,,,)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Opinions about Tamron 28-200?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 11:03:30 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Tampere, Dep. of Computer Science ,Finland 
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kuusama@kaarne.cs.tut.fi
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaarne.cs.tut.fi
Originator: kuusama@kaarne.cs.tut.fi

First a disclaimer: I am not too active photographer, shooting only
little more than family occasions and holidays, so good amateur quality
is fine for me :-)

Recently I saw an ad for an incredibly small AF 28-200 lens by Tamron.
Seemed just THE lens to carry with my EOS. So, is it a wise buy, what
I should be aware of etc., please?
--
Juha
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Which UV filter is better?
Date: 8 Jan 93 11:12:06 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1993Jan1.072413.26474@chpc.utexas.edu>, byab354@chpc.utexas.edu (Jim Xu) writes:

> Could you tell me which brand of UV filter is better?

Better than what? ;-)

> Nikon(L37C), HOYA(?), TIFFEN(1?), COKIN(?), HELIOPAN(?), ......

I'd recommend Nikon, Canon, Heliopan, Sinar or B+W.

-- 
--------------------- This mass of gibberish came from ---------------------
         ____
        |    |               Robert Claeson
        |    |               Data General AB
 _______|____|_              Box 28
|    |    _    |_____        S-164 93 KISTA
|_/\ |   / \   |     |       Sweden
| \/ |   \_/   |   . |
|    |    |    |_____|       robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
|____|_________|-
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rjw@nsa.hp.com (Richard Webber)
Subject: Enlarger For Sale
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:19:00 GMT
Distribution: rec.photo
Organization: Networked Systems Architecture, Hewlett-Packard

FOR SALE:

    Honeywell Nikor 6x7 Condenser Enlarger
    Beslar 50mm f/3.5 Enlarging Lens
    35mm negative carrier

    $75 - you pay shipping from San Jose, California (UPS COD for example)

I found this a great enlarger for getting started on.  I did mostly 35mm
work with it.  The lens is probably the limiting factor (it's only $30 new!),
I have made a print from a 6x6 negative using a borrowed 75mm lens and a
borrowed negative carrier.  The enlarger has a filter draw for VC or
colour filters.  Using this enlarger I was able to set up a darkroom from
scratch for less than $200 - it lasted me more than a year until I made
the investment in a new (used) enlarger.

Either email me at rjw@nsa.hp.com or phone (408) 447 2509.

Richard Webber
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ecldco@ultb.isc.rit.edu (E.C. Loyd)
Subject: Re: about 300mmF2.8 and 200mmF2.0
Originator: ecldco@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:06:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.155652.10997@Virginia.EDU> krd2b@Virginia.EDU ("Keith R. Donnelly") writes:
>The 300 2.8 also has the distinct advantage of functioning as a
>400 f4 with a 1.4x converter - and loses very little in the way
>of sharpness at that focal length.  A 600 f 5.6 with a 2x
>converter is nice, and fast enough to use too.  If only I had 2
>grand to spend to get one...
>
>-Keith				You who aspire to greatness,
>krd2b@virginia.edu		learn how to laugh! - Nietzsche

All you need to do is get a mirror lens...$100US for a 500mm, and spend
some change on a 2x converter...$25 or so used.

That's what I do.  Now, before I get flamed (I know, we don't flame on 
rec.photo) for this, I REALIZE the inherent dangers of mirror lenses with
teleconverters, especially those that are doublers.  But, for a 1meter
lens for $150 (mail order prices), you can't go wrong.

For those really good shots, I use a Tamron 600mm/f4 with my 2x 'verter.
Gives me usable speed at 1.2meters, which is great for bringing an
owl down out of his tree.


-- 
Eric C. Loyd                            ecldco@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
ISC/Data Center Operations              Phone: (716) 475-7320
Rochester Institute of Technology       FAX:   (716) 475-5306
Rochester, NY  14623  USA               All-In-One: LOYD EC (@a1.isc.rit.edu)
Organization: Doctoral student, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Date: Sat,  9 Jan 1993 16:10:11 -0500 
From: Luis Abdon Cifuentes <lc0v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: EOS 630, still good?


A local store is liquidating the 630 at $210. Is the 630 still a good
second body?  Have EOS cameras improved much since? How does it compares
to the ELAN for example?

I am about to switch to EOS from Nikon, and this seems like a good
opportunity to get a second body.  Thanks  in advance

Luis
From: ken@racerx.bridge.COM (Ken Hardy)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photographing people; need permission?
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:43:52 GMT
Organization: Planet Earth

In article <C0q7py.ML2@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>People engaging in political protest marches, etc., usually do NOT want
>to be photographed, and are very emphatic about it.

If they are in a public place taking part in a public demonstration,
I'd think that it would pass the newsworthiness test, and they would be
s.o.l. if you published their photo in a journalistic manner.  Don't
know about non-journalistic use, though, as in a show.

Disclaimers:

	1. I'm not a lawyer
	2. I don't even play one on T.V.
	3. I do like Perry Mason, though.

-- 

Ken Hardy
ken@bridge.com  (racerx!ken)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: gimbel@netcom.com (Bill Gimbel)
Subject: Re: Medium format rangefinders...any advice?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:18:33 GMT

I have been using the Mamiya 6 with its 50mm wide angle lens for over a year
and have nothing but good to say about it.  (Well, maybe it is a little on the
expensive side...)

I do 4x5 work also, and used to have a 35mm around for those times when the
4x5 was just not appropriate.  I got sick of dealing with printing from 35mm,
so I sold that equipment and purchased the Mamiya.  I felt I could use it
in a very similar fasion to how I used the 35mm, but with a much larger
format negative.

Briefly, I feel that the 50mm lens is extremely sharp and has excellent
contrast.  I also found that the Mamiya's view/rangefinder is very bright
compared to other rangefinder cameras I have used.  I can't say anything about
the other lenses (75mm and 150mm) because I have not used them yet.

If you want some amount of lens choice and are willing to pay more, go with
the Mamiya, otherwise get something else.  (Remember, we are only talking
about Medium format rangefinder cameras here, which sort of limits the options)

Your best bet would be to rent the Mamiya and the other cameras you are
considering and see for yourself what makes sense for you.  Good luck.

-- Bill
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Vignetting with Canon EF 28-105mm USM
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:29:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.151437.8303@spider.co.uk>, mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren) writes:
> Now, the only question I have is has anybody out there in net.land noticed
> this with the 28-80mm USM (either the regular or the "L" version)?  Could
> this have been a concession made when extending the range to 105mm without
> changing the package size?
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I take it you have never used a 28-80L. Hint, it, an EOS-1, and booster E-1
weigh more than a bronica SQ-ai 6x4.5!

The 28-80L vignets at 28mm, and is verry fussy obout filter size. I use a step
ring and 77mm PL-c for this reason. I dont shoot much at 28, more at the 80 end,
and its not a hell of a lot, so for me, the other virtues overshadow it.

~Paul
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Fashion Photography -- Going Pro
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:01:43 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

Here's one for all of you successful fashion photographers out there...

I have been exploring different photographic fields to feel out where I
would be best suited as a photographer.  When I started into this, I would
have never thought of being a fashion photographer, but it seems to be
where events are leading me.  I have been helping a number of local models
and model wannabes get their portfolios together, and they have without
exception been very impressed with the photos I have taken of them.  Even
better, when they have taken them in to their agencies, just about every
time the agent commented on the quality of my work and wanted to know my
name and phone number.  (Unfortunately, none of them have called me yet!)

So, how does one get started professionally as a fashion photographer?  I
have been thinking of getting a self-promotional piece together, but who
do I send it to?  Modeling agencies?  Ad agencies?  Someone else?  I'm a
little confused as to how the fashion industry actually works!
-- 
Jay Ts
uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
phone: (813) 979-9169
From: rct@fulcrum.co.uk (Richard Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: USM vs. regular lens
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:54:58 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <1993Jan6.025043.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
>In article <C0D76q.6v2@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca>, Fabrice Jaubert <fjaubert@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca> 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?
>> 
>
>No. The /usm is also faster.
>
>> Does anybody have any experience with either of these lens? How do they
>> perform in general?
>> 
>
>About how you would expect a cheep x4 zoom to perform. There are a lot better
>lenses around than this one.
>
>~Paul

I disagree. For the price, the 75-300 USM lens is good value, with an 
implicit guarantee of 'reasonable' quality, since it's from Canon. I'm happy
with mine. If, however you are expert/fussy/want to impress other
photographers, then this isn't the lens for you.

Regards,
============================================================================
Richard Taylor                  DoD #981                 (rct@fulcrum.co.uk)
"HELP! I've fallen, and I can't reach my beer."
============================================================================
Fulcrum Communications Ltd., Fordrough Lane, Birmingham, B9 5LD, ENGLAND.