HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Tilt & Shift 35mm lenses
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:59:47
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: zug.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: tssmith@netcom.com's message of Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:35:49 GMT


Canon makes the most flexible lenses and Del's in Santa Barbara will
adapt them for Nikons.  Canon's tilt and shift so you can correct the
plane of focus; Nikon just shifts for perspective correction on
architecture.
--

      -- Philip Greenspun

-------------------------------------------------------------
MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
545 Technology Square, Rm 433, Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-8574
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bbarton@Ingres.COM (Brian Barton)
Subject: Re: mixed light, film, and filters
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:05:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.005403.16161@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, ralandc@tara.SanDiego.NCR. writes...
>     I have some questions concerning the use of filters and film types 
>in mixed light photography.  There often occassions when it is possible 
>to have light from many different sources in a single setting.  For 
>example, it is quite reasonable to have daylight coming in from a window, 
>both tungsten and flouresent bulbs overhead, and flash being used as a fill.
>All of these light sources are of different temperatures. Also, there
>are films which are balanced for a particular type of light (temperature).
>For example, there are both daylight film and tungsten film.  Lastly, I am
>familiar with filters which can be used to provide correction when using 
>a particular film with a light source of a different temperature.  An example
>might be a setting which is illuminated with tungsten lights and using 
>daylight film and a filter for correction.  My question is:   
> 
>  What do you do when you may have multiple temperature light sources 
>  as described above?  Is there an easy way to caluculate what the best 
>  film type might be? and the correct compensation filters if any?
> 
> 
>========================================================================
>|) /||  /||\||\  /~ /| /|/| /||) /|   |    Raland Camara
>|\/ ||_/ || ||/  \_/ |/ | |/ ||\/ |   |    ralandc@tara.sandiego.NCR.COM 

The answer to your question is YES!  This can be difficult, but it's
a process of elimination sort of deal.

What you do is eliminate all but ONE of the types of light and shoot and
filtrate for that type.

e.g. Shut off the tungsten bulbs AND the flourescent tubes and just use the 
window light. (Or some other combination to your choosing.)  You could also
block ALL of the window light and shut-off all of the tungsten sources
and filtrate for the flourescents.

It's that simple, but make sure to check to make sure that your camera and
flash are appropriately filtered (or un-filtered) for the ambient light that
is left over.

I once had an assignment where I had to shoot an "environmental portrait"
in a police department with BOTH floursecent light and day-light in the room
as the primary "ambient" light.  Since I couldn't shut off the floursecents 
in the hallway I was in, (They were centrally controlled for the whole 
building and I couldn't unscrew the bulbs from their fixture) I shot day-light
film with a day-light strobe-set up and "prayed" that I'd minimize the 
invevitable green ambient light.  I provided some of my own ambient "daylight"
with the strobes and it worked out without a trace of green.  I was taking a 
risk (and was too lazy to do a polaroid), but you could always try that 
approach.  Good luck.


Cheers!

Brian

bbarton@ingres.com
From: mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: For Sale - Tamron AD-2 35-135mm Zoom
Summary: Mint Condition, good price
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:10:19 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.


FOR SALE
========

Tamron Adaptall-2 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 MF zoom lens

Includes case, carrying strap, UV filter (58mm), front & rear caps, and AD-2
mounting for Canon FD.  (Other MF mountings are available from Tamron dealers).

Mint condition - only three months old, rarely used.

140 pounds sterling, I pay shipping within the UK.
(125 for lens only, without Canon FD mount).

Replies by EMail to mikec@spider.co.uk

(By the way, the reason I'm selling it is because a month after
 I bought it I decided to go AF and bought an EOS).

-- 
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,ba.forsale,misc.forsale,ba.market,ba.market.misc
From: james@wrs.com (James Moore)
Subject: Yashica 230AF camera, 35-70 and 70-210 lenses for sale
Reply-To: james@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:31:12 GMT

For sale:

Yashica 230AF autofocus SLR
Yashica CS110 flash (I'm pretty sure this is the model number.  It came 
	with the camera; it's a low profile, almost like a builtin unit)
Yashica AF 35-70mm autofocus zoom lens
Yashica AF 70-210mm autofocus zoom lens

$390 or best offer for everything.

-- 
James Moore                            /|\                        james@wrs.com
Wind River Systems                     \|/                  Alameda, California
	 "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half
			  didn't mean anything at all"
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: yz3k@galen.med.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: 80-200/f2.8 for $$$, why?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:27:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.035957.3597@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@wind.bellcore.com  
(Jason Chen) writes:
> There seems to be a lot of interest in fast but expensive zoom lenses such
> as the 80-200/f2.8. I am sure there must be special applications where
> the additional stop worth the money, but I can't understand why there is
> so much interest in paying the large premium for the extra stop.
> 
> For example, the Canon EF 80-200/f2.8 L costs $925 (B&H as a reference), 
> while the 50-200/f3.5-4.5 L costs $499. These two lenses equal optically.
> The differences are the maximum aperture and the minimum focal length.
> I would take the 50-200L any day to save that $425 and to gain
> the 50-80 range at the sacrifice of one stop.
> 
> But then, I am no pro. There must be reasons for the popularity of the
> 80-200/f2.8 lens. What are they?
> 
> Jason Chen
 This isn't the case for EOS cameras but for many manual focus camera you can  
find 70-210 f2.8-3.5 or 4.0s. I have a Sigma 70-210 f2.8-3.5 for my Nikon. The  
quality isn't quite as good as the Nikkor but since I use Tmax 400 pushed 2  
stops it really doesn't matter. Considering I got this lens for under $200 and  
it only loses half a stop at 135mm and beyond, it is definitly a good  
alternative to the nikkor. I think several other company also made similar  
lens.
--yz
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Canon USM 'L'?
Date: 24 Nov 92 05:10:20 GMT

In <1992Nov23.163504.45065@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) writes:

>What does the 'L' designate?

Generally, it is belived that "L" designates lenses with "Low
dispersion glass".  (Although some believe it stands for "Luxury"!  :-)

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Li Du)
Subject: Re: Nikon 20mm f2.8 AF--is it worth the price?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:47:04 GMT

In article <PHILG.92Nov19225842@zug.ai> philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu writes:
>Oh yes!  It is absolutely the most fun I've had with a lens in a long
>time.  I've got the 24, 28 and 35 also but I leave them all at home
>and just take the 20, 60 macro, and 80-200.
>
	I also have Nikkor 20mm and 24mm lenses. The frequency of usage of 
each lens is highly dependent upon one's photographic subjects, style and
taste. I mostly do scenery and events photography, and I find myself using
24mm much more often than 20mm. But I will carry the 20mm whenever I can
afford the extra ounces. One important good feature of Nikkor 20mm/2.8 is
its CRC(close range correction) system. It provides excellent image quality
at close range, and it is fun and exciting to a good picture in which 
everything from a foot to infinite are "in focus".

---------------------------------
 Li Du | duli@prony.colorado.edu
---------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: EOS FAQ - Bigger and Better!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:55:18 GMT
Keywords: Canon EOS FAQ

In article <1992Nov17.071145.9207@colorado.edu>, panos@burton.cs.colorado.edu (Panos Tsirigotis) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.231830.3592@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
> >
> >6.7.  How can I shoot more than 36 exposures?
> >
> >It appears that there is no way so far.   The  camera  cannot  be  made  to
> >ignore the DX-ed film length.  Jim Cathey hypothesizes that with the faster
> >(5fps) film transport that first appeared on the 630/RT, that  Canon  might
> >worry  about  tearing the film off the spool.  (Anyone else have experience
> >with non-DX'ed cannisters?  What about if you hit EOF with a roll  of  less
> >than 36?  Any sprocket hole damage?)
> 
> As a single data point, I can state that a lot of times I have managed to 
> get a 25th frame out of a 24-exposure film without ever tearing the film.
> My camera is a 630.

I can also state that I can get the same (25 frames) with a 630. However, I
have pulled the film right out its cassette one time. This was with a Tech
Pan reload and I assume the end of the film had not been properly secured to
the spool. So it can happen.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wiltz@after (David Wiltz)
Subject: Re: Konica Infrared 750 B&W Film
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:14:09 GMT

castellano_joe@Tandem.com (JoeCastellano) writes:

>Looking for some help on using Konica's infrared Balck & White
> 35 mm Film.
>This is a Photo Class assignment requiring photographs using
>Infrared Film.
>I been told that Konica's Infrared Film is easier to use
>and process that Kodak's 2481?? Is this true ??

Look in a past issue of Shutterbug (~5 mos ago).
The author gives a decent rundown of the Kodak IR,
and takls about the Konica, but didn't get a chance to test it.

In answer though, the Konica seems to be a bit easier to use,
not requiring (un)loading in total darkness.


>Looking for advice and or hints on picture taking and processing.
>Seems like outdoor images of greenery generate some interesting
>effects. Any ideas for subjects ??
>I will be doing my own film processing so any thoughts on this
>would also be appreciated.

I've only shot Kodak, so I'm not sure on Konica processing, but
processing the Kodak is as sipmle as xx minutes in D-76.  Yea, there
was grain, but it had a nice, tight sort of feeling about it that I loved.

Printing from IR negs will generally require a bit of burn&dodge.

My suggestion--bracket widely.

As far as subjects go, yep, landscapes are natural ideas, since
all of the greenery (we don't have this in Illinois anymore :) )
will go to varying shades of white, the skies go dark (remember the 
red filter), and many natural formations are turned surreal.

Try portrait shooting with IR.  It looks like the second layer of skin
is the one which the picture is being taken of.
Don't be afraid to play with this stuff, it is fun film.

-Dave

--
   David Wiltz                                wiltz@after.math.uiuc.edu
   Calculus&Mathematica Development Team
   University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  NeXTmail always welcome!
-Doing business with the government is a lot like playing poker with God.-
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Wanted: viewmaster equipment
From: dlr@testeng.ksc.nasa.gov (Doug Reed)
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:34:51 EST
Organization: Voice Systems Engineering, Kennedy Space Center

I'm looking for viewmaster equipment including camera, slide cutter
and mounting stuff. Send mail info to mail address please.

Thanks, Doug

-- 
+-----------+---------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Doug Reed | HP3065AT Board Test Engineering | Kennedy Space Center, FL |
| Ham Call N4QVY | #include <std_disclaimer> | Lockheed Space Operations |
+----------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: watters@darwin.genetics.washington.edu (Mike Watters)
Subject: Re: The Kodak disposable underwater camera
Organization: University of Washington   
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:36:21 GMT

I haven't used the camera myself, but I saw the pictures that a friend took
with one.  They really were not all that bad.  A little fuzzy, but that's
to be expected.  The main problem with the camera is the lack of a flash.
without one, the colors are mostly lost.

If you are willing to spend a bit more money, you might want to look into
one of the fairly cheap snorkling cameras. (Like the Minolta Weathermatic)
They will cost a lot more (I'm guessing somewhere around $150-$200) but
they have a built in flash and a much better lens.

mike

--
Mike
watters@genetics.washington.edu
Dept of Genetics, Univ of Washington  Seattle
(d) 206-543-1934   (e) 206-361-1156
From: sylve_ge@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Gerald Sylvester)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikon 6006 advice
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:09:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: jhunix.1992Nov16.170914.16302
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

In article <5877@rosie.NeXT.COM> jspirer@rain.next.com (Jeff Spirer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.021032.3582@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
>Jimmy.Tung@dartmouth.edu (Jimmy Tung) writes:
>> Sounds like the photofinisher screwed up.... So the end result
>> is that a careful photofinisher should be able to get good prints if
>> they put the time and effort into it.  Don't know if you're paying for
>> it though...
>> 
>Which is why I always get contact sheets instead of prints when I shoot  
>print film.  I am surprised that this is so rarely suggested when there  
>are so many complaints about sloppy photofinishers. 
>
>I have a custom lab make a contact sheet.  I use that as a reference when  
>I go to a reasonably low cost local photo shop to get the right prints.   
>This has never once resulted in a problem with the final result. 

I don't know whether this applies to everyone but I would guess it
applies to many of you.  The reason I send my neg's to a cheap place
for processing and get cheap 3.5 x 5" prints is because it is cheap
and more importantly, I don't really care what the prints look like other
than sharpness, grain-size (if the 3.5x5" is really grainy look at the
neg to see if it is underexposed) and whatever else.  I think you can
see a lot more from a 3.5 x 5" print even if the color is way off than
a 25x35mm print of a contact sheet.  If you want good color, most likely
you are going to have to print it yourself or go to a custom lab.

Gerald Sylvester

NOTE: I mostly take pictures at concerts with weird lighting so I _expect_
	to get pathetic looking prints from any lab and I am not about
	to pay top $$ for custom prints for every print of a roll.
From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Back issues of Shutterbug-- Looking for a particular loupe.
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:05:17
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: zug.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: phg+@CS.CMU.EDU's message of 21 Nov 92 00:37:11 GMT


The Schneider 6x6 is the most awesome medium format accessory in the
world.  It is only 4X, however, so you may be disappointed.  I use a
cheaper Schneider loupe for 35mm but it is also 4X.  I don't know of
anything with decent coverage that gives greater magnification.

People will say you are a photographic genius if you show them your
Rollei or Hasselblad Velvia output under the big Schneider.


--

      -- Philip Greenspun

-------------------------------------------------------------
MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
545 Technology Square, Rm 433, Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-8574
From: milt@sdd.hp.com (Milt Fisher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Tree Sap
Date: 17 Nov 1992 08:46:01 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

I recently got some tree sap on my Nikon 8008s.  I was wondering if anyone can
recommend from experience a safe way to remove it.  I called Nikon.  They
said to try washing it off with a damp rag, and if that didn't work to send
it to the service center.  I haven't tried it yet, but I doubt that water
will remove tree sap.  Sending it to Nikon seems like overkill and a waste of
time and money.  Does anyone know whether a little paint thinner will harm the
finish?  Would rubbing alcohol work?

Thanks,

-- 

Milt Fisher - Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
milt@sdd.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Best price for Canon Elan?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:21:31 GMT

In article <1ebt0mINN2sl@antigone.usc.edu>, yangchen@antigone.usc.edu (Yang Chen) writes:
> I am in market for the Elan. If you recently bought one, could you
> mail me the price you payed for? I'll post the result if I can get
> more than 3 replies. 
> 
> I saw the Nov. issue of Popular Photography has ads from B&H saling
> the Elan w/28-80, 3.5-5.6 USM lens for $569, CWO is $559 for the
> same package. 47th St claim they have a 7% rebate, did any body
> ever tried?

Note that 47th street photo charge 5% of order for shipping. This isn't
a big deal for lots of small heavy items which may be expensive to ship
anyway, but if you order something like an EOS 1 or an F4s be prepared
for the shipping charge! Still, an effective 2% discount with free shipping
is better than nothing.
===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: kassover@rumsey.crd.ge.com (David Kassover)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lamp intensity vs. lifetime
Date: 22 Nov 92 05:37:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: crd.1992Nov22.053755.6593
Organization: nope

In article <By12xz.4nz@javelin.sim.es.com> rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs) writes:
>From what I have read, I don't think DC would result in greater lamp life.
>To quote from Sylvania Miniature Lighting Products Handbook, page 11:
>
>"Evaporation and Notching.  During its normal operating life as an incandescent
> element, the tungsten filament steadily boils off tungsten atoms at a rate
> strongly dependent upon the temperature.

I believe that several kinds of photofloods actually have carbon
filaments.  dunno if they behave the same way as tungsten.

>
>Let's not forget that Edison favored DC power transmission, and the genius
>behind AC transmission (and the ability to transform voltage up or down)
>was Nikola Tesla.  If Edison had had his way, we would have needed a small
>generating station in every neighborhood.

If I remember correctly (and I'm sure someone here will be
willing to correct me), Tesla's problem was that he favored beam
power transmission (look ma, no wires), and this was just too
close to black magic to be accepted.  The AC/DC disagreement was
between Edison and Steinmetz, I think...



-- 
David Kassover             "Proper technique helps protect you against
uupsi!khazad!kassover	          sharp weapons and dull judges."
kassover@aule-tek.com                   F. Collins
kassover@ra.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: candids
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:41:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.135438.18725@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> dougb@ecs.comm.mot.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.154543.23535@PacBell.COM>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>
>|> IMHO, why does it necessiate purchasing a long lens for candids?
>|> You state you are part of the yearbook staff, which should give you
>|> some type of "license" to freely take pictures. I personally find
>|> the regular, standard, 35mm lens ideal for candids. You not only
>|> will get superb depth-of-field, but you can use the lens in
>|> tighter quarters. The 300mm lens will require a tripod, so it
>|> seems, plus you lose depth-of-field. If you want "nice close-ups",
>|> then I would opt for a plain old 100-135mm range lens, and
>|> preferrably a zoom lens at that.
>
>Actually, in my experience as a yearbook photographer, many candids
>look better when there is little depth of field.  It makes the picture
>and the subject stand out from the page.  Often times candids taken with
>a wide angle (35mm is wide angle, not normal) lens will suffer becuase
>the viewer can't always figure out what the subject was.
>
Like everything else, a matter of preference. In my suggestion
regarding "candids", I was not referring to "close-ups", in which
your suggestion (to shooting close-ups) would be my suggestion as 
well. A candid, to which I am referring, is a picture, as suggested 
by the original poster, of a three students at the library. The 35mm lens, 
IMO, would capture the subjects and because of better depth-of-field, 
give you a sense of where they are. The 300mm lens lack of depth-of-field,
IMO, would require the photographer to be rather distanced from
the subjects to capture the idea it was three students studying
in a library. If the intent was to only show three students
studying without regard in capturing the location, i.e., library,
then the 300mm lens would be adequate with the proper composure, etc.

Your statement about shooting with a 35mm lens and the subject 
suffering because the viewer cannot figure what it is, is truly
dumbfounding to me. The 35mm lens has long been a "standard/normal"
lens, long before it became fashionable to have the myriad of
lens available today. The 35mm lens is an excellent lens and the
pictures that I have shot with it have been very normal and the
subjects very distinguishable. Even shooting with a 20mm lens,
the subjects are distinguishable. Perhaps distorted, but the
35mm lens will not give you this perspective unless you are shooting
inches from someone's nose. :-)
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain