HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: E-6 in Jobo
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:04:33 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC

In article <59@gobi.UUCP> you write:
>	Glad to see other times from other Jobo users.

	Thanks for the table.  I use the hobby pack because usually can't
use up a gallon in any reasonable time.  Anyhow, if I remember
correctly, I used to use 80% recommanded time for both 1st and color
developer and thing came out ok (I bracket a lot so even if the first
developer is off, I am still ok).  I did two rolls yesterday using full
development time as suggested by net.wisdom and they came out too blue.
I think I'll do a roll of color chart using your table and see what
happen.

>	PS I switched from other "3 step" E6 systems and was amazed at the
>difference how clear the base stock is with the kodak 6 step vs the others -
>I will not switch back.

	As soon as I put a darkroom together (just moved and using a
bathroom now), I am going to get a gallon E-6 kit.

>	Any suggested times for Cibachrome / Jobo process with a
>Saunders/LPL 670DXL Dichroic color head  El-Nikor 50mm 1:2.8 lens
>would be nice. Last time I used it as a color enlarger was with Ektaflex.
>Too bad Polaroid did not do the "right thing" and come out with their
>own version after killing off Ektaflex.
>Base CMY corrections for this system (if any), expose times + f stop vs
>mag charts...
>	This forum is a perfect place to pass around base 
>enlarger/times/stops/mag/CMY (offsets) charts.
>
>	Not looking forward to calibrating another color system :-)

	I don't think you have much choice.  Each pack of ciba come with
a different suggested filter pack, and since my Enlarger is second hand, the
recommanded filter pack never worked for me.  I usually start out with
no filter and go from there.


-Anthony
From: mapres@gdr.bath.ac.uk (R E Slade)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Illuminated buildings, advice required.
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:09:16 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK


  I have been asked to take photographs of a church (here in England) which
is being specially lit up by floodlight.  I only have one chance at this
so I want to make sure that I get it right!

  My camera is a Canon EOS 1000FN with 35-105mm f4.5-5.6 lens.  Perhaps someone
else has taken similar photos with this camera and could give me some advice as
to films, reciprocity failure, exposure compensation etc.

	Thanks,

		Robert Slade.
From: madson@unix.SRI.COM (Carl Madson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: maximum/minimum aperture
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:00:14 GMT
Distribution: rec.photo
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, California


Actually, if you stick to the true definition of f-stop, the physically
largest aperture is ALSO the numerically largest aperture: e.g., f/2.8 is a
larger aperture and number than f/16, and so forth. So small apertures and
small numbers should correspond. (Note to novices: the '/' really does mean
'divide by'. Pedantic mode off.)


		--Carl Madson, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Leica rangefinder group
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:48:55 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute
Keywords: Leica rangefinder


Could someone repost the mailing list address of the group here
interested in Leica rangefinders.  Send it directly to me if you
can or to the list if you cannot.

Thanks
--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: partial metering on EOS 650 - HOW?????
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:43:38 GMT

In article <Brv8F7.74M@cs.dal.ca>, graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham) writes:
> Well I was carrying my camera around with me all day and eventually I found
> myself inside at a nice intimate jazz concert.
> 
> I knew that taking flash shots would ruin the mood so I tried partial
> metering on my 650.
> 
> I put it in AV mode and got 1/3 sec for correct exposure.
> 
> Then I held down the partial metering button and focussed in on the guy's
> bright guitar. This resulted in 7/10ths!!! 
> 
> I took one shot at 1/3 for the hell of it, but I was mad that I could figure
> out partial metering. I do have the manual - but it is VERY vague.
> 
> I'd appreciate it if someone could help me out - ie - tell me what i did
> wrong!  :)

In parial mettering mode, no corrections are applied to the measurement.
In AE metering, a large brightness difference between cells causes a correction
to be aplied to lower the wieght of the darker areas.

I would LOVE to know the EXACT answer to this, but Canon seem to think we are
too stupid to understand this sort of thing. The only place that you may find
a exect answer to this is the service manual, if you can get one...

~Paul
From: kar@cs.rit.edu (Kenneth A Reek)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: PZ-1 over the EOS 10s, N8008s
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:35:39 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY

In article <1992Jul29.154536.13570@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>In article <3557@cs.rit.edu> kar@cs.rit.edu (Kenneth A Reek) writes:
>>
>>	Much worse IMHO is the plethora of glitzy photos that avid amateurs
>>will produce, ones that look just like the glitzy examples in the camera's
>>instruction manual, ...
>
>Hey, a good picture is a good picture.

	My point is that most of these will not be very good pictures.  The
picture becomes an excuse to use a glitzy (but inappropriate) feature.

>>	As manufacturers compete with each other for the "most features in
>>a camera" prize, the features that are added later tend to be less useful
>>than the features that were added earlier (obviously).
>
>That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Any feature made "later", will
>eventually become the feature that was added "earlier", as more and more
>features are added.

	And by comparison, the even newer features will be even less useful.
Let me illustrate my point.  When companies started putting computers in
their cameras, one of the first "features" offered was automatic exposure.
Often this came with several exposure modes, including a manual mode. These
days, everyone has automatic exposure; nowadays manufacturers compete by
offering features such as programmed zoom (or whatever it is called on the
Pentax PZ-1), trap focus (on many cameras), and bar code readers (Canon EOS).
There are situations in which each of these new things is useful, but the
point I was trying to make is that none of them are anywhere near as useful
as automatic exposure.

	In ten years, who knows?  We may see cameras with the "automatic cloud
insertion into blue sky" feature.  My point was that, as a general trend, the
newer features tend to be less useful than the older ones because (I suppose)
the older ones were more obvious and were therefore tackled earlier.  There
are exceptions to the trend, of course, and there will continue to be
exceptions; in ten years we may also see cameras that analyze the out-of-focus
portions of the incoming image and translate it into an image that is
completely sharp -- infinite depth of field. 

	Even though my N8008s occasionally exposes a scene badly, auto
exposure is still much more useful (to me, anyway) than trap focus.
--
Kenneth A. Reek				kar@cs.rit.edu
Rochester Institute of Technology	rutgers!rochester!rit!kar
From: tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:56:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:

> I might start to get into a taboo subject here, but here goes.

> Just what is the difference between a Pro Photographer, and an Amateur?

My definitions (take with 10^10 grains of salt):

Pro: somebody who does what it takes to get the client to pay the bill.

Amateur: somebody who does what it takes to get the picture to come out
right.

In my *limited* experience with pro photographers, they seem to be so
specialized that they can't do any other kind of photography: they just
can't function out of their field. These, of course, are not the top
people, they're just the everyday grunts making a comfortable living off
portraits and weddings: in other words, the "bottom 95%". IMHO many amateurs
have far more breadth of experience. But the pros, if they are any good,
have a business sense that is totally lacking in most amateurs. 

>                                                                         My
> definition is that a Pro has made money with his pictures, and an Amateur
> is just a person that takes pictures for fun.

I basically agree.

> Getting in a little deeper, using my definition above, what does a Pro
> need to have to prove that he is a Pro?  Not all Pros work for Newspapers
> or Magazines you know, there are also Freelancers that sell to the highest
> bidder.  What would he or she have to prove that he or she was a Pro?
> What exactly are PRESS CREDENTIALS, and how does one obtain them?

There are respectable, bona fide trade organizations, such as ASMP. Mem-
bership is not restricted to employees of publications; rather, it is an
organization of people in the business of meeting the photographic needs
of the publication industry.

It may take such credentials to get into an event, depending on who's in
charge.  The bottom line is that you have to convince the guard that you
have a legitimate need to be there, and won't be a liability to his/her
organization. What it comes down to is: can you talk the talk and walk
the walk? Are you credible? Attitude probably counts heavily. Act like you
belong there.

tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: E-6 with NO Jobo (Was: E-6 in Jobo)
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:31:22 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Jul27.021435.22943@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis) writes:

> Anyway, the Jobo I use normally drops a couple degrees F during the 1st
> developer.  No big deal, you just compensate (with temperature
> drift-by or extend the time).  I know what temperature and time I need
> to use to get the results *I* expect.  That's why I suggested you run
> some test rolls before using "real" film.  You will need to see how
> things work in your system so you can compensate for variations.
> (Also, your hand agitation will not be the same as everyone else.)

The Jobo that I use maintains the temperature perfectly throughout the
entire processing session. The data sheet says that the variation is
+/- 0.2 C, but I haven't seen anything more than +/- 0.1 C at the most.
I think your machine may be faulty.

> There are differences in the process times between using a Jobo and a
> small tank with inversion processing.  For instance, first developer
> time with a Jobo is 6.5 minutes and small tank is 7 minutes.  If you
> get the Kodak gallon kit, it will have all the information you need.

Hmm, the Tetenal 5 liter processing kit I use tells me to use 6:15 in
a Jobo and 7 minutes for other kinds of processors, including small tanks.
One liter can process 12 135-36 rolls. The fifth through the eight roll
should have the time in the first developer extended by 15 seconds and
the nineth through the twelweth rolls should have the time extended by
30 seconds from the base time. Kits from other manufacturers may have
slightly different opinions.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:42:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul27.184201.4729
Distribution: na
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Jul27.024009.5134@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.184231.20250@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>Def: Professional (noun): one who has acquired special skill in or knowledge
>>                          and mastery of something.
>
>That's a metaphorical usage of the word.  Literally, 'professional' means
>one who does something for a living or in order to earn money.
>
>Don't people around here know English?

In your definition, I don't agree with the "for a living" part.  A Pro could
derive his/her living from something other then Photography. All the rest I
do agree with though:

One who does something in order to earn money.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lens shading (Re: Schneider and Rodenstock lenses)
Keywords: lens quality
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:48:19 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

donl mathis writes:

>Hat hair.  Yes, hat hair.  You see, to be a large format photographer,
>you not only have to be willing to lug all that junk around, and spend
>hours taking pictures where other people can just snap and then leave,
>you have to gain an appreciation for your personal appearance with Hat
>Hair.

And let's not forget Dark Cloth Hair, as well.  Mine usually loses that
freshly-combed look after a few sessions under the dark-cloth.  In fact
it's usually kinda smeared all over my head and fore-head.  The effect
gets better on hot days when there's lots of sweat to act as glue. 

>Part of the whole large-format scenario is also not being bothered by
>what other people think.  Remember -- most people have no idea what a
>view camera is, but they sure recognize the bellows, and will be
>reasonably sure that this camera must be "one of those old-fashioned
>kind".  Some of them will get curious and start asking questions.

My favorite is "Where do you get film for it?"  :-)  This can lead
to an explanation that there are photographic items far beyond
the ken of Photo Drive-up personel.


Barry


-- 


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp.       | "Any fool can face a crisis - it's     | 
| bjs@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com           |  this day-to-day living that wears you |
|                                   |  out." - Anton Chekhov                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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.                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: HO@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Francis Ho)
Subject: Flashes for PENTAX, OLYMPUS, and CHINNON
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:24:58 GMT

(1) CHINON AF-S120 electronic flash for CHINON AF cameras, fill-in flash,
    ultra compact uses camera batteries.

(2) RONKUNAR MX382T TTL dedicated for PENTAX or OLYMPUS (AF or manual focus
      TTL metering) cameras
    G/N 66 (ISO 100/FT)
    AF illumination to 16ft (auto focus in total darkness or dim cond.)
    Auto (TTL) range 3.3 ft to 22 ft
    TTL exposure control will work in Program mode and all other modes.
      including Manual Mode.
    Requires 4 AA alkaline batteries
    NEW, still in plastic wrap, manual and warranty card, box.
    $25+.

ho@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
From: uli@i13d5.ira.uka.de (Uli Bodenhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Medium format slide projector (Was: What's your favourite slide viewer?)
Date: 24 Jul 1992 09:37:14 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i13d5.ira.uka.de

In article <CMM.0.90.2.711806101.chribrud@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, Christian Brudevoll <chribrud@ifi.uio.no> writes:
|> In article <1992Jul22.112613.25761@alf.uib.no> edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor Legvold) writes:
|> 
|> >  - I use Medium format exclusively,
|> > and the cheapest projector (here anyway) is a kr.6000 Reflekta (about $1000)
|> >
|> > Are there any other alternatives other than a lupe & lightboard?
|> > 
|> 
|> There is a (hard) alternative for viewing large slides.
|> I have tried to build me an enlarger for 4x4" with an
|> overhead as lightsource. It didn't work partly because of
|> lack of quality in the light, so I ended up bying a used one.
|> 
|> But the enlarger will suddenly become a good slide-projector 
|> if I get 4x5" slides sometime. 
|> So if you can get an old overhead cheap or free, make an extension,
|> a slide-holder and a connection for a lens. I have used the viewing
|> camera for the last one, and it's far from perfect.
|> 
|> Christian Brudevoll
|> 
|> 
Before trying to convert a overhead projector, try to find a shop
that sells Meopta gear from the CSFR. Mostly they are known for enlargers,
but Meopta also produces a 6x6 slide projector, which sells for DM 300
here in Germany.

I was looking for a reasonable medium format slide projector for a while
and also tried an overhead projector and my darkroom enlarger. Both
tests were frustrating. Here's my short review of the Meopta projector:

Meopta Medirex 6x6 slide projector, about DM 300 in Germany, including
150mm/f3.5 projection lens. Fully manual, you have to change the slides by
yourself, no trays (which also are expensive in medium format). Illumination
and colour of the light source are good (that means that the colour appears
very pleasing for me). Cooling of the slides is good. The contrast of the
projected image is good, that means much better than from a top class 
35mm projector (Reflecta 2006 with 90mm/2.4 multicoated lens). The only problem
is the sharpness, the projected image is only as sharp as the image from
the above mentioned Reflecta projector (for equal sized pictures). From
my point of view this is the only downside of this projector. I hope to
find a better projection lens that fits into it sometimes.

Hope that helps

	Uli
From: tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:36:59 GMT
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA

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

> 5K or more of equipment, he must be legit.  The guards don't
> really care, if you look official, they just wave you in,
> at least according to my friend Bob.

"Oh, it's you, Bob."
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dfx@nuchat.sccsi.com (dFx International Digest)
Subject: Looking for Canon EOS Fisheye Lense
Organization: Houston Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:07:50 GMT


 I've recently purchased a Canon L1 which, as most of you probably already
 know, allows me to use Canon EOS or compatable lenses. Since Canon is not
 directly making a fisheye lense for the L1, I need to find one that works
 with the EOS, whether it be a Canon lense or not. I normally don't keep up
 with rec.photo or the still photography world, so if someone could point 
 me to a few decent mail order houses or the faq, I'd appreciate it. I'd 
 sort of like to find one used, mainly because what I've been quoted for a
 new one is quite a bit more than what I'm used to paying for camcorder 
 lenses and there is a chance the lense will be damaged within a year or so
 (because what we're filming leaves the camera low to the ground and open 
  to direct hits from flying objects). If anyone has a line on where to get
 one, please let me know.
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Minolta 7000 Qs + Need help in improving my photographs
Date: 29 Jul 92 05:08:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul29.013947.11373@citec.oz.au> sgccpgs@citec.oz.au (Paul Salanitri) writes:
>What you are refering to is called : "Depth of Field"
>
>This is an important question to ask, and every person who takes pictures
>with an SLR should try to understand it.
......
>Trying to explain this to my flatmate I told her to hold a finger in from of
>her and look at the scenery in the distance.  It is not possible to focus on
>them simultaneuosly.  However, when one makes a fist and looks through the
>pin hole it forms, one notices that it is possible to focus on both, albeit
>a much dimmer image.  This is the equivalent of an aperture like f/16.


  How could you look through the fist-made pin hole with both eyes?










Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: stoppani@ninja.zso.dec.com (Pete Stoppani)
Subject: Canon Elan -- Likes/Dislikes?
Reply-To: stoppani@ninja.zso.dec.com (Pete Stoppani)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:48:25 GMT


I'm thinking about buying a Canon Elan body so I would like to hear
from people that have one (or have used one).  I'm familiar with
the features and technical specs so what I really want to know is:

	What do you like about the Elan?

	What do you dislike about Elan?

I currently own an EOS630; I like its features but I'm a bit
disappointed with the ergonimics (or lack thereof).  For example,
I dislike fiddling with the little door at the bottom to set some
functions; you have to take your eye from the viewfinder.  I also
HATE the way manual mode works (the buttons and the viewfinder display).

The Elan seems to have an excellent user interface; all buttons are
accessible while you have your eye at the viewfinder and manual mode
is very intuitive.  Do owners agree with this?

If anyone out there has used both the 630 and the Elan I would REALLY
like to hear from you!

Any comments (positve or negative) on the Elan are appreciated.

Thanks.

--
| Pete Stoppani          | stoppani@rust.zso.dec.com                 |
|  DECwest Engineering   | stoppani@decwet.enet.dec.com              |
|  Bellevue, WA          | decwrl!fungus.enet!stoppani               |
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hofmann@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Jenns Hofmann)
Subject: 8008s = F801s
Originator: hofmann@hphalle2a.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:30:15 GMT


Here in Germany there is no 'Nikon 8008s',but I suppose it's exactly the
same like the 'Nikon F801s' that is sold in Europe.
Am I right ?
 

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:56:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.024009.5134@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.184231.20250@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>Def: Professional (noun): one who has acquired special skill in or knowledge
>>                          and mastery of something.
>
>That's a metaphorical usage of the word.  Literally, 'professional' means
>one who does something for a living or in order to earn money.
>
>Don't people around here know English?
>
>-- 
That is why Hooker's are called pro's.
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: peter629@Armstrong.EDU (James Peterson)
Subject: FOR SALE: Nikon FE-2 
Summary: selling Nikon body
Organization: Armstrong State College, Savannah, GA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:51:04 GMT

Nikon FE-2 chrome body for sale.  It's in excellent condition, functioning 
perfectly with 90% finish.  It does have one problem the film advance stop
needs to be fixed (doesn't effect function, but you can actually advance
throught a roll of film with out exposing any frames.  I used a motor drive
so I never bothered to fix it, but it could annoy:) manual winders)

I'll consider any offer or trade for Nikon lenses (we can work out the details)

James Peterson
peter629@Armstrong.EDU