HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: atc@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Canon EOS accessories question...
Date: 24 Jul 92 09:19:02 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Can someone please tell me what the following EOS accessories actually do?

Transistor Pack E

Macro Lens Mount FD to EOS
Which lenses is this useful for?


-- 
Andrew Chambers
Computer Services
University of Waikato
New Zealand

ATC@WAIKATO.AC.NZ
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dennisg@aus.intel.com (dennis grifith X64683)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:03:12 GMT


I always thought a 'pro' was someone who made more than $500.00 a year from
photography.  At least that is what I was told it was for painters (artists).

					Dennis
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Long lenses
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:40:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

From article <45611@shamash.cdc.com>, by ria@dash.udev.cdc.com (Richard Askew):
> : > AK> Don't bother with 300mm unless you're prepared to bring a tripod too,
> : > AK> and use it.  My tests at shorter focal lengths lead me to believe that
> : > AK> anyone who claims to be able to hand-hold a 300mm lens, even at 1/500,
> : > AK> is either lying or has low quality standards.  At some point I will
> : > AK> try it myself and then I'll know for sure.
> : >
> 
> I missed the original - just in case its not been mentioned...
> 
> As general rule: never hand-hold a shot at a speed SLOWER than the 
> focal length of the lens. ie. 300mm @ 1/500 etc.
> Of course, its only a general rule. - some people will get acceptable
> results other won't.
> Personally, I've used 400mm @ 1/500 and got away with it, but then I
> learnt to shoot .303 rifles in the semi-prone position as teenager in
> the Army Cadets!!!!

Yeah.  The Sigma 400/5.6 APO is very light, lighter than my 80-200/2.8ED AF.
I have gotten all-right picture with the lens hand-held.

> -  Please no FLAMES from the anti-gun lobby (I only shot at paper targets)

Watch out!  Some of 'em tree-hugging folks might resent this.  Paper 
is from trees, you know...
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: scratched negatives
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:39:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

There is an oily substance called Edwal No-Scratch that can be put on the
negatives at the time of printing (temporarily) in order to fill the
scratches.  I bought a bottle of it 10 years ago and still haven't opened
it...  Any good custom lab ought to have it available.  Ask them to use it...

-- 
==========================================================================
Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.
==========================================================================
From: chuck@drutx.ATT.COM (LucianoC)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: A perfect answer (Was: Amateur vs. Pro)
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:57:59 GMT
Reply-To: chuck@drutx.ATT.COM (LucianoC)
Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO


This weekend I did a shoot for an event at a model airplane club where I am
a member. The folks in the club were very pleased at the shoot and one of
the organizers asked me why I don't pursue photographing these events as a
source of added income. The answer I gave was perfect in that it stopped the
conversation right there, I said, "Because I don't ever want to wake up in
the morning with the thought, oh s*** I HAVE to take pictures again today".

I tried pro-photography once and decided I enjoyed my photographic hobby too
much to ruin it by making a job out of it.

So my definition of a professional photographer is someone who sometimes MUST
take pictures even when he doesn't want to.

Just my $0.02.
Chuck
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis)
Subject: Re: Quality of "E-6" Hobby Pac and Fuji RD.
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:50:19 GMT

In <1992Jul9.172637.25409@odin.corp.sgi.com> donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis) writes:

>In article <190@metran.UUCP>, jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:

>|> I have been thinking about dropping my local E-6 lab (a Kodak Q-Lab) in
>|> favor of the Kodak Slide Hobby Pac.  My reasons are mostly centered around
>|> money and convenience rather than quality.  [...]

>If you are really going to be shooting a large number of rolls, you
>will find it *much* cheaper to buy the gallon E-6 kit.  Your friendly
>Kodak dealer can order one for you.  I don't have the numbers with me,
>but you'll probably find it's something like eight times the chemistry
>for three times the price.

Indeed.  If economy is important, the Hobby Pac is not the way to go.

>It's only worthwhile if you can use it all up within a reasonably short
>period of time, e.g. a month.  Kodak does not recommend mixing part of
>the kit, but I have done it with good success.  It requires that you
>measure the contents of each bottle of solution first, since Kodak
>typically doesn't provide those numbers.  Then you can divide it up
>proportionally as you need.  The stern warning is that once opened, air
>in those partially filled bottles will cause trouble within a few
>weeks.  Some kind of air evacuation or displacement would help, I
>think.

>If you want to play by the book, mix the whole gallon, and use it up
>within a reasonable period of time.

I have never mixed the whole gallon.

The Kodak E-6 gallon kits I've been using for the last couple years
come with mixing instructions for gallon, liter and pint amounts, and
processing capacity and storage longevity information.  Also included
of course, are processing instructions for different methods (i.e.
small tank hand, rotary, etc.), troubleshooting tips, and so on.

>|> What I am wondering is, how much quality (and of what type) will I be
>|> losing?  My lab technique is good, but I will be using a simple water
>|> bath system, and nothing as fancy as, for example, a Jobo processor.
>|> [...]
>|> If I use the "E-6" Hobby Pac and Fuji RD, I can cut my film and processing
>|> costs at least in half!  Is this a good idea?  Keep in mind that I need to
>|> maintain professional, marketable quality.  What I am asking is this: "Will
>|> the difference in quality be noticeable to a trained, professional eye?"

You will want some kind of thermostatically controlled water bath, but
this doesn't have to cost a lot of money.  It may take you a few
batches to get everything ironed out.  However, depending on how good
your commercial processing has been, not only can your own processing
be just as good, it might even be better.  One thing is for sure:
*you* control how much you scratch and sprinkle dust on your film.
--
Al Goldis         goldis@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikkor 180mm f2.8
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:21:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Jul27.061400.29117@colorado.edu> duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Li Du) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.23372@makesys.com> john@makesys.com (John Turman) writes:
>>I am considering the purchase of a 180mm f2.8 Nikkor [ ...... ]
>>My current standby for portraits is a Nikkor 135mm f2.0 AIS. I'm
>>thinking that the 180 may just give me a little more dramatic
>>separation of subject to background than the 135 does.
>	Does a 180/2.8 lens produce more seperation of subject from
>	background than does a 135/2.0 lens? A rough computation shows
>	that, when used wide open, the two lenses have about the same 
>	DOF at same magnification. I haven't seen a photographer who
>	owns both 135/2 and 180/2.8. Assuming the same optical quality,
>	then what's the advantage of choosing a 180/2.8 over a 135/2?
>	
>---------------------------------
> Li Du | duli@prony.colorado.edu
>---------------------------------

For distances near the subject, the depth of field depnds only on the
magnfication and the f-stop, so assuming you framed the same subject,
you would get better separation from *nearby* subjects with the f/2
lens.  However, the size of the circle of confusion on the film from a
point of light at infnity does depend on the focal length, so at the
*same* f-stop and magnification it will be fuzzier for a long lens.  On
the other hand the 135 has a bigger aperture, so you have
counteracting effects.  I don't know what kind of pictures you have in
mind, but just guessng that you want to cover 24x36 inches, ie a
magnfication of 1/25.4, you get the following sizes for the circle of
confusion for a point at infinity.

lens f.l.	aperture		circle of confusion
180mm		2.8			2.53mm
135mm		2.0			2.65mm
135mm		2.8			1.89mm

So the 135 wide open is still better at fuzzing out points at
infinity.

  -- David Jacobson
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Schneider and Rodenstock lenses
Keywords: lens quality
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:55:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23264
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ

In article <bdTs03vr3dBu00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman) writes:

> Not any more!  One of the un-niceties about the Mido film holder system is
> that there's no dark slide.

Hm... I ordered a bunch of those once and sent 'em back because they
looked too flimsy to work in practice.  Was I mistaken?
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Enlarger light sources
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:03:24 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute


In article <1363@sousa.ltn.dec.com> madler@vssad.enet.dec.com (Michael C. Adler) writes:

>I'll let my curiosity get the better of me and probably start a
>religious war.  What are the fundamental differences in both B+W
>and color enlargements made with condensor, diffusion and cold
>light sources?

	Pick your author.

>I've read that many color heads use diffusion.  Is this simply a
>space constraint or is there a more sophisticated reason?

	Don't know.

>Cold source advocates claim that these lights actually decrease
>grain.  Given that grain is effectively the image how is it possible
>to decrease grain without sacrificing sharpness?

	Cold light arrives as a diffuse illumination source.  Their
tubes are not point sources.  Condensor sources are closer to a point
source.  Point sources cast sharper shadows.  Yes, you do sacrifice
sharpness to an extent.

>Is the color temperature (or light spectrum) of cold sources suitable
>for positive and negative color enlargements?

	Cold sources do not necessarily have the correct frequency
spectrum on their own.  They aren't black body sources that
approximate sunlight.  There are cold sources designed into color
heads so that they overcome this.  The Bessler 45A, which is additive,
and its brother the 45 Universal subtractive head, use tubes rather
than incandescent bulbs.


--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Summary: Not a catch-22
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:03:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Jul27.190319.29543
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul27.183634.4539@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>If you can't get in to a certain event to take pictures, then
>how are you ever going to sell what you don't have, or can't get, simply
>because of stupid rules that try and separate some photographers from
>others. Its the old catch 22 syndrome.

Surely _some_ salable pictures can be taken without being granted special
access...

-- 
==========================================================================
Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.
==========================================================================
From: stafford@msus1.msus.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Images anyone?
Date: 29 Jul 92 04:19:08 GMT
Organization: Minnesota State University System


	Would anyone here be interested in exchanging images?
	All I see is hardware fetish material.

	We could set up a GIF FTP site and become involved in
	esthetics other than those of the engineering paradigm.

	?
 jjs
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lens shading (Re: Schneider and Rodenstock lenses)
Keywords: lens quality
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:55:46 GMT
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Distribution: na
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA


In article <1992Jul21.181954.3578@pmafire.inel.gov>,
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) writes:

|> >that there's no dark slide.  No automatic lens shade.  Granted I can still
|> >grunge around in the bag and dig up a gray card or notebook or something
|> >like that but I"ve lost the convenience of the darkslide lens shade.
|> 
|> Doesn't anybody wear *hats* any more?  They work quite nicely for
|> shading that ol' lens.
|> 
|> C'mon!  Ansel wore a hat; I wear a hat.  What more evidence do you all
|> need? ;^)

And this Geoff guy forced *me* to buy a hat, too.  Unbelievable.  "You
need a hat," he says.

Well, anyway, I guess he was right.

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com

"We're seeing Buicks the size of prominences!"
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: EOS zoom lens recommendations
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 10:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.084959.10713@bernina.ethz.ch>, mason@p.igp.ethz.ch 
> (Scott Mason) writes:
> hi,
> 
> I'm currently considering purchasing 2 zoom lenses for an EOS 630 - any
> recommendations, comments, ideas would be appreciated...it's all getting a
> bit confusing and I have, admittedly, rather limited experience.
> 
> zoom 100-300mm: 
> --------------
> Seems to me that 2 (middle-priced) options exist here based on the test
> results published in the (german) Fotomagazin which gives ratings based on
> optics and mechanics (out of 10)
> 
> 1. Canon EF 100-300 USM - scored 8.8  and 9.4  ($259)
> 2. Sigma 75-300 APO - scored 9.8 and 9.2. ($299)
> 
> The Sigma has a better range and apparently considerably better optics for
> basically the same price? Anyone had any experiences with it? Does the Sigma
> match the USM lens in speed and quietness?
> 

There have been a few comments in the group that 3rd party AF lenes can suffer
problems. The problem seems to be overshoot and hunting ect. Given that all the
'scores' given in the mag are in the 8-9 range, I wonder how stringent their
tests are, and what they are measuring?
You may wish to also consider the EF100-300L. The price isn't a huge increase
over the USM. The results are 1st class.

> zoom 20-35mm:
> -------------
> options appear to be:
> 
> 1. Sigma 21-35 (3.5-4.2) - scored 9.2 and 8.4 ($317)
> 2. Tokina 20-35 (3.5-4.5) - scored 9 and 9 ($370)
> 
> Again these options seem pretty close in price and quality. But does it make
> sense to buy a wide-angle zoom? Would 2 separate lenses e.g. 24 (Canon 2.8)
> and 28 (Canon 2.8), be better value - except the lens-changing hassle?
> 

Wide angle lenses are a bear to design and manafacture. hence not cheap if
quality is to be acceptable. Distortion is also a big problem, both because
of the large coverage angle, and because the are used for landscape and the like
which are more likely to show it up. Resolution also has to be maintained so
windows in skyscrapers ect still look like windows and not dark dots. Add
zooming to all this, and things get an order of magnitude worse... Look at the
price of the 20-35L or the 28-80L to get someidea.
Whether you want to got with prime lenses is up to you, but you would need a
20, 24, 28, and 35 to fully cover the range. If you can live with one or two
of them, you will get better quality for you money.

> Finally, is the argument of staying with the manufacturer's lenses (in this
> case Canon) to avoid incompatibility with new body models an important
> consideration here?
> 
See above. The brand X people still seem to have a bit of reverse engineering
to do, or need someone who understands servo systems. any interface that isn't
speced is subject to change at the whim of the manafacturer...

~Paul
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: a question about Velvia
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:50:54 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Labratory, Washington, DC

In article <1992Jul21.212838.6467@javelin.sim.es.com= rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs) writes:
=In article <54570@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> larsenp@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Paul Larsen) writes:
=>A while ago, I submitted some Velvia slides to a magazine in hopes of getting
=>them published.  The slides were recently returned to me with an unsatisfactory
=>reason as to why they won't publish them.  They told me that they prefer 
=>Kodachrome because it reproduces much better than Velvia. ..........Why is
=>there a seeming bias against Velvia and for Kodachrome?  
=
=The reason, I believe, can be expressed in one word:  Tradition.

	I agree.  After I shot a brick of K25 in the Grand Canyon, I'll
never go back to Kodakchrome.  Everything look so pale, even with
a polarizer on, there was hardly any color in the K25.  I'll stick
with Fujichrome for scenics and Ektachrome for anything with skin.
Does Velvia come in bulk yet?  As nice as it is, $10 a roll is just
a tad too much.

-Anthony
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc Sarrel)
Subject: Re: New Equipment Jitters
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
	<CLEV.92Jul24165831@lager.cisco.com>
Distribution: rec
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:04:57 GMT


Thanks to all who responded by email and news.  I called
1-800-NIKON-US and the rep said that the slight play is normal.  Also,
I think we're all in agreement that the rotating filter problem is a
PITA.

--marc
--
Marc Sarrel			"Strange as it seems,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory	 There's been a run of crazy dreams,
mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov		 And a man who can interpret could go far --
				 Could become a star."
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Portable softboxes (was SB-24/wedding (Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz))
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:06:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

Several people have been discussing the small softboxes that fasten on
a flash unit.  I looked at the Photoflex inflatable one, the other M
shaped one (Lumiquest?), and the MicroApollo and decided that they
were not quite good enough.  The problem is that although the
fabric/plastic does scatter the light, it is so close to the flash
head that most of the light still comes from an area not much bigger
than the flash head.  So I got the LumiQuest Big Bounce.  I'm quite
happy with it.  Two nitpicks: 1.  It requires you to put the flash
head vertical, and it is fairly heavy, so I have trouble with my
SB-24's head tipping down to its "normal" position under the weight.
2.  It seems like it looses a lot of light, but I can't see anywhere
for the light to go but out, so this might just be inherent in any
softbox.

  -- David Jacobson
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: TRAINING: NEW YORK INST. OF PHOTOGRAPHY?
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:41:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.120650.4724@gw.wmich.edu> x89marenger@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF ANYONE HAS TAKEN THE NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF PHOTOGRAPY
>COARSE. WOULD YOU RECOMMEND IT?
>
> 
>THEY ARE NOW OFFERING THE $698 COARSE FOR ONLY $498 UNTIL JULY 31. ANY COMMENTS
>WOULD BE APPRECIATED.
>
>
>
>KEITH
>

A former associate of mind (he retired) was taking this course
and he truly enjoyed it.  He was given assignments and it was
critiqued, etc.  That is all I can offer.  Good Luck.
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
From: feltman@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Robert Feltman)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:48:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Enlarger light sources
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

I don't think anything can decrease grain after development :). What
B&W cold light enthusiasts (hopefully users) "see" (different than claim),
is that highly collimated light does infact "emphasize?" grain, dust,
scratches etc., when compared to more diffuse sources. The most important
observation when printing B&W with cold light is better seperation of the
high values. Callier attributed this effect to a higher scattering of
collimated light in the more dense or high values of the neg. as compared to
a diffuse source. I hope someone will reply with a more technical perspective
than the above.

Important however is results. I have printed side by side comparisons of cold
vs collimated and am satisfied that I am seeing easily detectable improvement
in print quality with the cold light. No amount of arguing will change that.
Perhaps someone out there has tried this experiment and gotten different results?

Bob
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rao@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Govindaraju Rao)
Subject: Re: bad experience with FotoCell
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:35:11 GMT

  Margret M. Reek writes:
  >>  details about bad experience with FotoCell deleted...
      ....
  >> ...., but they were on Popular Photography's "Check Rated"
  >> program list, so I figured they would be OK...

  Has anyone in the past written to Pop. Photo. informing them that
  many readers take their Check Rated list in good faith ? Only to
  find out the hard way that some Mail-Order firms can be downright
  callous. 
  
  One assumes that Pop. Photo does some reasearch before granting
  (or at least appearing to) tacit approval. Or is this a naive 
  assumption ? Is it likely that such research, if any, is done 
  periodically ? Say, once in a couple of years. At the very least.
  
  Any guesses on how seriously Pop. Photo would investigate if a 
  disastrous incident like this were to be brought to their notice ?
  
  My guess: "Our investigation reveals that it was an isolated incident..
             ...circumstances beyond control...we apologise, but cannot
             guarantee...." etc etc    
   
G.S.K. Rao <rao@ccm.umanitoba.ca> <rao@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
From: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikkor 180mm f2.8
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:50:47 GMT
Reply-To: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

I own the subject lens and it is nice for portraits.  I shoot weddings
mainly in 2-1/4 square, so I dunno . . .

I have been tempted to do more weddings in 35mm so I could use this
lens as well as the 300 mm f4 ED.  ONe caveat:  These Nikon ED lenses
are very sharp wtih the right film.  That may show every pore and blemish,
which may be a problem.  I recommend experimentiing with some diffusion,
since you can't get negative retouching in 35mm.  You must also be careful
with composition, since 8x10s effectively use a smaller extent of the
frame.  These tele lenses have a shallow depth of field at wide apertures.
   /|/| /||)|/  /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~   |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
  / | |/ ||\|\  \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_|  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======