HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor Legvold)
Subject: Re: photomanipulation
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 12:10:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.155355.32550@news.th-darmstadt.de> D98O@BR1.HRZ.TH-DARMSTADT.DE (Jochen Fuehrer) writes:
>
>In <1992Nov11.204928.23850@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com writes:
>
>> | I am looking for specific examples of photographs that have been
>> | manipulated and used as a picture of reality.
>> 
>> 				-Heather
>> 
>> The very best examples of this kind of work have probably passed
>> right under our noses without being detected. People who alter
>> photographic images in order to pass them off as *unaltered* do 
>> not attach warning labels to their handiwork!
>> 
>> 				-Alan
>
>I have seen a famous example in a foto magazine (don't remember which or
>when). It shows Lenin and his men without Trotzki, but he actually was
>on the original picture. They simply put another face over his. The fake
>was in every soviet history book, the original picture also still exists
>in western archieves. 
>I just remember, it was in Popular Photography around 12/91.
>-- Jochen
>
>> 
>> 

Popular Photography had an article on photo manipulation last year in
the autumn, and included many examples.  They had even begun to retouch
pictures that readers had sent in for critisism so that the reader could
see the difference reccommended (i.e. get rid of that bush, darker sky, etc)

Regards,
Thor
From: elau@berlioz.nsc.com (Eugene Lau)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Flashing "ISO" in Elan
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:15:07 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation

In article <1992Nov9.195228.10168@research.nj.nec.com> arif@ccrl.nj.nec.com (Arif Merchant) writes:
>I recently tried setting the ISO manually on my Elan (using non-DX
>coded film). Following the manual, I turned the dial to ISO, set it,
>and turned the dial back to the "Green" mode. However, the "ISO" in
>the LCD display keeps blinking. Does this indicate a problem? Any
>information would be appreciated.
>
> Arif

try setting the custom function to override automatic ISO.  hope it works.

eugene
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc Sarrel)
Subject: Re: Photo Schools
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
	<PHR.92Nov11210357@napa.telebit.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:14:21 GMT

In article <PHR.92Nov11210357@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:

   A friend of mine took some more serious courses at a local junior
   college.  These were in pro lighting techniques and product
   photography and had real projects, grades, etc.--the courses were
   quite a lot of work but he got correspondingly more out of it.
   I don't remember the costs or details but again it was surprisingly
   cheap.


I'd give taking a course at a local Junior or Community college a big
recommendation.  I'm now on my second course and am signing up for a
third next semester.  The first two courses cost about $50, excluding
materials.  They provide chemicals, so thing only thing you _really_
have to buy is film and paper.  Of course, as you progress, you want
to do fancier things and make better use of the lab time, so you buy
other things (your own film cleaner, spotting stuff, chemistry for
developing at home) with the goal of maximizing your time on the
enlargers.  But, none of this is strictly neccesary, since they
provide a minimal setup that only _requires_ you to buy film, paper
and maybe mounting board and tissue.  Very nice and flexible.

Also, the instructors are very good both in an artistic and technical
sense, but also in their dedication and enthusiasm.

Anyway, with the budget problems in CA, they're starting to reduce the
number of classes, especially night classes.  And, the price went from
$10/unit to $50/unit for people who already have a Bachelor's.
Actually, it sounds pretty fair to me that way.  The total tuition for
me for next semester will be $175 to $200.  It's still a bargain if
you consider the number of hours of lab time and instruction you get
for that.  (2 hours lecture and anywhere from a minimum of 4 to a max
of 8 lab hours a week.  That counts lab during class time and "free"
lab on Saturday.  They also have another 4 or 6 hours of free lab on
Friday, but for those of us who have a job, it's not convenient.)

Of course, as anyone knows, materials are always more expensive than
the course.  But, that's another story... :-)

In short, get out and take a course at a Community College.  Of
course, your mileage may vary.  I've heard that Pasadena City College,
where I go, was ranked as one of the top CC's in the country.
--
Marc Sarrel			"She's got a big boyfriend
Jet Propulsion Laboratory	 A really big boyfriend
mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov		 He lifts weights, he builds cars
                                 And he's got no sense of humor
                                 She's got a big, really big
                                 Really, really, really big boyfriend"
                                                     -Blotto
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sparks@col.hp.com (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: 4x5 dups of 4x5 trans
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:46:01 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

In article <4f0KkAG00iUx05r0hB@andrew.cmu.edu> "Frank A. Reynolds" <fr0c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>Anyone work a commercial photo lab?
>
>What kind of equipment do they use to make 4x5 duplicates of 4x5
>transparencies?

I used to work for a studio that occasionally did 4x5 duplicates.  We
often made 35mm duplicates of 4x5 transparencies.  We did both of these
operations with a homemade duplicator/copy-stand (that also handled 35mm
dupes as well).  The light source was a 4x5 color head mounted upside
down and attached to the bottom of a counter top with a hole cut in it.
There was a piece of round white plexiglas filling the hole (don't know
if this was part of the color head or an addition).  Mounted on the
counter top was a copy stand rail where we mounted a 35mm or 4x5 camera
as necessary.  This worked fine.  I would think a 4x5 enlarger with a
color head would work just as well if you only wanted 4x5 transparencies
(not 35mm, though you could probably project the image into a 35mm
camera body without a lens, focusing could be a problem however).  Just
project the transparency onto a film holder loaded with the dupe film
(make some kind of jig or use an print easel for positioning the film in
the same location every time).  We did something like this when making
4x5 kodaliths.  Duplicating film is quite slow so the enlarger with a
timer should be accurate enough.  The advantage of the duplicator/copy-
stand was that the color head stayed on constantly and we just used the
camera's shutter to control the exposure, but with the typical
multi-second exposures, an electronic timer on a color head would
probably be more accurate.

John Sparks
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rsiva@active.UVic.CA (Sivakumar  Radhakrishnan)
Subject: Mail Order from Canada
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 08:20:53 GMT

Hi,
    I am planning to buy a camera from the US through Mail order.
Could someone tell me whether customs duty has to be paid in Canada. What
about the warranty ?

    I came across one firm (Supreme Cameras, NY) in "Popular Photography", 
Nov 1992 issue that claims to sell photo equipment, duty free to 
Canadian residents.  I shall be thankful if some netter could highlight
me on this topic.

Thanks in advance,

Regards

Siva

rsiva@sirius.uvic.ca
From: v206gb6c@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (IS AN ILLEGAL PERSONAL NAME)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Chinon CP-7m and Pentax-K lenses for sale
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:38:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I have a Chinon CP-7m camera body and 50mm lens for sale.  The body supports
full manual, aperture priority, bulb, and 3 full porgram modes; single
and continuous film advance; multiple exposure; self timer from 1 sec to
99 minutes; EV adjustments in .5 steps to +-4.0; flash hot shoe; cable
release ready; built in DX reading can be overridden with a piece of
masking tape and then custom set.  
The lens is Chinon 50mm 1:1.9.  It has a Quantaray 1A filter and a rubber 
lens hood attached.  There is also a case for the camera/lens(if I can find it).
I'd like $175/obo (see below) for the pair.

I also have the following camera lenses I would like to sell.  They all fit
cameras with Pentax-K mountings(say, the above Chinon).  All are manual focus,
though they do support auto-aperture modes.

Vivitar 28-70mm Macro Zoom 1:3.5-4.8, 52mm filter compatible.     $ 50
    This is a standard zoom lens with 1.5X macro capabilities.

Sigma 35-200mm Macro Zoom 1:4-5.6, 62mm filter compatible.        $120
    This is a great lens.  Quite often it is the only one I
    carry on trips and the whatnot.  It's only `flaw' is that
    I stuck a "Free Moses Mayekiso" sticker on the focusing
    ring in my more political days (it in no way effects the
    operation of the camera).  Quantum 1A skylight filter 
    included.

Hanimex 135mm Telefoto 1:2.8, 55mm filter compatible.             $ 45
    This is a quality fixed distance lense.  The thru-the-lens 
    view is very sharp.  Built-in lens hood (i'm sure there's a 
    more technical name, I just can't think of it at the moment).  
    A Hoya UV(0) filter is included.

All of the above for $350.

If you see a lens you want, but don't like the price, let me know, maybe we
can work something out.  I'm also open to trades for computer, biking, or
camping equipment and CD's (particularly cult rock).

PauL M SchwartZ  (-Z-)  |  Follow men's eyes as they look to the skies
v206gb6c@ubvms.BitNet   |         the shifting shafts of shining 
pms@geog.buffalo.edu    |        weave the fabric of their dreams
pms@acsu.buffalo.edu    |                    - RUSH -
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tonyp@mcs213j.cs.umr.edu (Tony Phillips)
Subject: Re: Incredible blue sky
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:00:59 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

I didn't expect to get so many responses to this question.  But since I did, I feel it necessary to correct a typo I made.  The photograph under discussion 
isn't in Popular Photography; sorry to those who have dug through it to find
nothing. The Ektar Awards are published in Peterson's Photographic.

Thanks for all of the helpful comments, folks!


-- 
|  Tony Phillips-  University of Missouri CS Dept.  |  Programming: A noun   |
|                                                   |  meaning 'The Art of   |
|  Reply to:  tonyp@cs.umr.edu                      |  debugging a blank     |
|  Prefered Address:  S102066@UMRVMA.UMR.EDU        |  sheet of paper'       |
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: watters@darwin.genetics.washington.edu (Mike Watters)
Subject: Stereo Camera Club meeting 
Organization: University of Washington   
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:15:20 GMT

The monthly meeting of the Puget Sound Stereo Camera club is coming up this
Saturday Nov. 7th at 12:15 - 3:00PM at the Auburn Library (808 9th St SE).

If you are interested in stereo photography or are just curious and want to
see how it looks, you are welcome to come to talk and check out some slides.
They are supposed to be showing the current entries in the International
Stereo Slide Competition, so there should be some very good slides.

mike

--
Mike
watters@genetics.washington.edu
Dept of Genetics, Univ of Washington  Seattle
(d) 206-543-1934   (e) 206-361-1156 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Lunar magnification
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:03:48 GMT

In article <BAUDAIS.92Nov11162308@bmerh160.x400gate.bnr.ca>, baudais@x400gate.bnr.ca (Michael Baudais) writes:
> I have a general interest question:
> 
> Why does the sun/moon appear larger when it is closer to the horizon?
> 
> I would guess that the atmosphere acts like a lens, but why is the
> image still perfectly round, and up to 2x the size?  And who ground
> the atmosphere into the required shape?  :-)
> 
> Mike

This topic is discussed at length in sci.astro from time to time. Try
aking the question there :-). Basically it is an optical illusion
probably caused by referencing the moon's size to objects on the ground.
When it is high up there are no optical size reference points nearby and
it LOOKS smaller - though in fact it isn't. Take pictures of the moon
when it is just rising and when it is at it's maximum elevation (due south).
Measure the image sizes - they will be the same (within a few percent
anyway)

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Olympus XA test data
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:34:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T


With all the discussion re: Olympus XA quality I though the following data
I just dug up from an old file I had saved many years ago might be of
interest. The data is said to come from Modern Photography Nov 1979...

f#    center  edge  (lp/mm)
2.8     42     30
4       47     32
5.6     59     42
8       67     47
11      67     53
16      59     47
22      47     37

My conclusion from this data would be that it is quite soft wide open, but
usably sharp by f5.6. My guess is that most 35mm (focal length, not format!)
SLR lenses would beat it wide open, but in the f5.6-f16 range performance
would be similar. I have never seen a Minox test report. Anyone have one?


===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rao@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Govindaraju Rao)
Subject: Re: Sharpness (Subject example)
Keywords: Sharp, lens/film testing
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:06:29 GMT


Stephen R Fraust writes:

>>	Find a subject that has lots of detail (brick wall, granite rocks,
>>	newspaper print at a distance, etc).

A note about the type of subject I used when I recently tested
my lens and film. 
 
Collect some empty pop cans. I used 18 of these. Make sure to get
different colours and different designs, such as diagonal lines,
dots of different sizes, subtle gradations in colour, etc. 
Fill them up with water and stack them up in  3 rows one over
the other with about six cans in each row. I would suggest that
you use a spot in the open shade for setting up this experiment.
Direct sunlight gives too many highlights, which tend to obscure
the details on the can. Shoot to your heart's content or until
your wallet screams, whichever comes first. 
 
Some possible pitfalls to watch for:

If the slides or prints are not sequentially numbered by your
processing lab (happened to me) then you wont know which frame
was taken under which settings. All you efforts at keeping
detailed notes will go down the drain. Cut some large-sized
digits from an old wall-calendar and include in the frame during
composition.
 
Avoid direct sunlight. Too many highlights.
 
It is a good idea to include a grey card in the frame. At least
some of the frames if not all. 
 
Bonus returns:

The target material can be stored for as long you need. Use it
for other tests as well. Another lens, film etc. 
 
If you deliberately crush one of the cans you get a good abstract
composition shot. 
 
The background shows through the gaps in the pop-can-wall. Use
a large dark-coloured cloth as a backdrop. Makes for better
abstract compositions. 
 
Spray some water on some of the cans and shoot some close-ups.
Looks nice. 
 
Good Luck ! 
-- 
G.S.K. Rao <rao@ccm.umanitoba.ca> <rao@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
 
GRAD STUDENT'S GRACE:  Please God !! If it MUST crash .... not when
                       *I* am using it !!
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: swansond@nextnet.csus.edu (Dennis Swanson)
Subject: Attn: Jay Ts
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:40:45 GMT

Jay, I wanted to email to you major thanks for your suggestion on my fill
flash question, but it bounced back to me with:

<<< 554 <metran!jay>... Host metran not known--please specify domain
554 jay@metran.UUCP... Service unavailable        

For the life of me I cannot figure out how to send mail to a .uucp address.

	Den

-- 
..................................................................
: Dennis M. Swanson : "No matter how long you live, remember that :
: swansond@csus.edu : you will be dead much longer."  Eccl. 11:8b :
:...................:.............................................:
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: troby@diana.cair.du.edu (Thorn Roby)
Subject: Schneider G Claron for Landscapes?
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 23:52:00 GMT

After seeing a recommendation for this lens in the Zone VI catalog
as a good general purpose lens (despite the fact that it's optimized
for closeups) I decided to give it a try. My initial tests of the
150 (at 25 feet) are not too impressive - about 35 lp/mm. I'll be
repeating the tests, but I thought I'd check to see whether anyone
has used it for this purpose. By comparison, I shot the same test
charts (at 12 feet) with my EL-Nikkor 80/5.6 (also a six element 
design optimized for closeups) and got about 50 lp/mm. Is there 
anything else about the G Claron that makes it especially wonderful -
contrast, color fidelity, etc.? My usual assumption is that if a
lens is lacking in resolving power, it's probably not going to be too
good in other areas either. I was drawn to this lens because it seems
like it would be useful for a wide range of applications, as well as
enlarging - I'm not shooting anything larger than 6x9, but the Nikkor
gets a bit soft in the corners at that size.
Alternatively, if anyone has used one of the Nikkor W's for both
taking and enlarging (I'm thinking of the 135 or 150), I'd be interested
to hear about your results.

-- 

Thorn Roby                              troby@diana.cair.du.edu
CARL Systems, Inc.                               troby@carl.org   
3801 E. Florida Ave.,Suite D300,Denver, CO 80210 (303) 758-3030
From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: SCUBA questions (new Ektachrome + Nikon Action Touch)
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:14:43
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: zug.ai.mit.edu


Two questions:

1) Does anyone know when the new Kodak SCUBA Ektachrome will be
available?  Has anyone ever seen it either here or in Europe (where
Kodak lately seems to be introducing its best stuff first rather than
here in the Third World)?  I leave for the Great Barrier Reef on Dec
11th and I'd like to get some by then.

2) Has anyone ever pushed a Nikon Action Touch deeper than its rated
10ft.?  I'd like to use it SCUBA diving in Australia to around 15m if
possible.  The rumor is that it will hold up to at least about 20m.

Thanks alot,

Philip Greenspun
MIT Deparment of EECS
From: jay@intermec.com (Jay Schlegel x6878)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Incredible blue sky
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:56:22 GMT
Reply-To: jay@intermec.com (Jay Schlegel x6878)
Organization: Intermec Corporation, Everett WA

In article <1992Nov9.031341.8468@umr.edu> tonyp@cs.umr.edu (Tony Phillips) writes:
>For those of you who read Popular Photography, look in the newest issue
>at the Kodak Ektar awards.  There is a beautiful picture of some hot-air
>balloons rising over a lake.  Notice the blue sky.
>
>My question is, how in the world did the photographer get the sky to be that
>dark, yet the balloons to be so bright?  I would guess the photographer wasn't
>using a ND grad filter because the balloons aren't darkened.  I've also heard
>that a polarizing filter helps darken the sky, but I havn't ever acheived 
>that startling of a result.


  Ektar 100/125, if not underexposed, will produce highly saturated blue skies w/o
the use of a polarizer, provided the skies are indeed blue and the print is properly
made.  Cheap drugstore prints will often produce a pale magenta cast with very poor
saturation.

  Not sure about Ektar 25 wrt blue skies, but I sure love the fine grain!

.
.
.
.
.
.
-- 
-*jay  Jay Schlegel --> Intermec Corp., Everett Wa.
						     fluke!
	jay@intermec.com      OR  -->	    uunet!pilchuck!intermec!jay
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: swanee@megadata.mega.oz.au (Geoff Swan)
Subject: re stock photography
Keywords: photo stock
Organization: Megadata P/L, North Ryde, Sydney, Aust.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:40:41 GMT

> this brings up a wall i have been bumping into recently. i don't even really
> know how to approach the issue. how does one go about furthering one's
> knowledge about the business of "stock" photography? is this something
> one moves into out of generic aptitude, or can one actually start out
> by targeting this market? where does one find good examples of stock
> photography, especially since it seems to me to defy categorization? are
> the agencies interested in "assisting" potential talent (my suspicion is
> not to any great extent, if at all), to the tune of pointing them at what 
> is selling, and where to find "good" examples that can help guide artistic 
> growth? 

> Michael H. Collier        INET: collier@ariel.unm.edu   BITNET: COLLIER@UNMB

With stock photography in Australia, a library will represent a photographer
who can supply a continuous turnover of stock. They're not interested in
your "best 50 shots", they want around 800 trannies to represent you and
around 400 more shots each year. This is due to all the filing and payment
tracking and paperwork that has to go on. There is stock photography
everywhere around you - just think of the types of shots that someone
with an ordinary product may need for a brochure/annual report etc. The
turnover is required because good shots get exhausted quickly (I have
sold one shot three times in one week). If you are on assignment then use
the opportunity to shoot a few rolls of stock. Recently I spent half an
hour in a helicopter above Sydney to shoot a few frames for a client and
ended up with not only the required shots, but another 350 stock shots,
200 of which will be put into the stock library. If you are into specialty
areas (e.g. elaborate macro setups - I spend a lot of time shooting
dangerous snakes and spiders with macro equipment) then those shots are
very marketable, but don't limit yourself to only those.

As far as making money is concerned, a conservative estimate that is
used in the industry over here is around A$5 per frame in the library
earned per year (remember not all frames will be sold). So if you have
2000 frames in the library, expect around A$10000 per year as earnings from
that stock. It's a good way to supplement your other photography income,
especially in slow times.

I hope this is of some use to you,
                                   Geoff Swan
                                  swanee@megadata.oz.au
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Incredible blue sky
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:51:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24120
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <1992Nov9.031341.8468@umr.edu> tonyp@cs.umr.edu (Tony Phillips) writes:

> My question is, how in the world did the photographer get the sky to be that
> dark, yet the balloons to be so bright?

A polarizing filter will do amazing things to the sky if you're aiming in the
right direction with respect to the sun.  Also, where was the picture taken?
Could it be the Albuquerque Balloon Festival, by chance?  If so, Albuquerque
is at about 6,000 feet elevation and very dry; the sky there is much darker
than it is at sea level in damper climates.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo