HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: question about night photography
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:17:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Sep3.191755.1687
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Sep1.211030.7240@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com> dhr@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com (Dan Harlow 3551) writes:
>
>I would love to take pictures of the beautiful San Diego skyline at
>night, with all the lights and the hills and the lit up towers.  But
>I can never get them to come out or look good with a point and shoot.
>I have friends across the country and around the world that I would
>like to send pictures to, without having to resort to ripping them 
>out of books.
>
>I'd love some advice about how to take well done night pictures of 
>buildings, skylines, and even with people in the foreground.  I have
>a Canon A-1, and a tripod.  If someone would kindly offer a beginner 
>some advice about this by direct email or by posting, it would be 
>tremendously appreciated.

First rule, don't shoot prints, shoot slides. Photo finishers will just
turn your nice black buildings and such (with lights all around) into
a muddy brown color. Slide will show you exactly what you shot.

Another good rule of thumb is that longer exposures will give you more
light saturation then shorter ones, and its a good idea to bracket as well.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: selenium wash
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:39:16 GMT
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA


In article <1992Aug26.173212.26513@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>,
jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:

|> > noticeable.  If you can`t get hold of "The Print" and want to know the
|> > Adams procedure, send me some mail, I'll look it up.
|> 
|> Which reminds me of something else in that book.  He describes a procedure
|> he calls "clearing the whites" - dunking the print in dilute reducer after
|> fixing.  This was intended to produce more brilliant highlights.  He writes
|> as if he did it routinely.  I have never seen that recommended anywhere
|> else or heard of anyone else doing it.  Was it required because Adams'
|> paper/developer combination was exceptionally prone to fog, or what?
|> Anyone out there do it?

Are you sure this was Adams book you're thinking of?  I've heard of
other photographers routinely using reducers, but what I remember of
The Print is that Adams didn't really like reducers, and used them as a
last resort.  I don't recall any statements about "clearing the
whites"; in fact, a large part of the discussion is on how to get the
whites right to begin with.  He has a section on reducers that gave me
the impression he didn't trust them, and avoided them as much as
possible.

Adams' papers and developer were nothing terribly unusual, especially
in the middle/later years -- Dektol, Ilford Galerie, stuff like that.
Apparently, once he convinced himself that the exotic developers of
Certain Other Photographers didn't produce better looking prints than
Dektol, he stuck with the packaged stuff.  His craft must have lain
somewhere other than exotic chemistry!

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: badboy@netcom.com (Jay Keller)
Subject: Re: Here is some info on Nikon lenses
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 06:06:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <laai0eINN5ie@almaak.usc.edu> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) 
writes:

>I asked them on the phone a short while ago:
>
>                                     B&H price
>14b   1.4x   for > 300mm               $400
>14a   ditto  for < 300mm               $191 
>
>301   2x     for > 300mm               $395
>201   2x     for < 300mm               $205
>
>Do you know what lenses the sigma 1.4x works well with?
>Is it a good idea with the Sigma 400 mm?
>
I can't talk about Sigma, but I have the Nikon TC-301 and TC-14A.  I believe
that the above tables should say ">=" and "<=" 300mm.  In other words, I
think the 300mm lens can be used with all 4 converters.

I use my 2 converters mostly with the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF.  The -14A gives me
420mm f/5.6 and the -301 gives me 600mm f/8.  Both combinations give excellent
sharpness (the 300 f/4 is an ED lens and is superbly sharp to start with,
IMHO).  I shot my all-time favorite pictures, of the 1991 total eclipse,
with the 600mm setup.

By the way, Nikon won't tell you this, but the TC-14A and the TC-301 can
be stacked (lens-301-14A-camera, NOT lens-14A-301-camera), which with the
300 f/4 gives me 840mm at f/11.  At this point I'd say that I begin to notice
some of the loss of sharpness usually associated with most teleconverters.
However, it is a usable setup and I have shot some good stuff with it.  By
adding Nikon's "lens scope converter" instead of the camera I get an 
84-power telescope with which I've seen the rings of Saturn and 4 of Jupiter's
moons.
 
With the N8008 I can shoot in aperture-priority center-weighted AE or in
manual.  Mirror-lockup would be nice, so I guess the F4 user would see even
better results than I have.

All in all, I love my Nikon teleconverters and I'd recommend them very highly
to anyone owning a Nikon 300mm lens or probably the 80-200 would be great also.

Regards,

Jay Keller
Sunnyvale, California

badboy@netcom.com

Xref: sparky rec.photo:15227 alt.cd-rom:2875 gnu.misc.discuss:2829 misc.int-property:907
From: rcoadh@kultarr.co.rmit.oz.AU (Alexander Doktorovich)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Photo-CD - THE FACTS
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:06:02 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>Next question: "What is the resolution of the highest resolution image?"
>Answer: "3072 X 2048", 24 bit color.  Yeehaaa!!!!!

What is the effective spatial and colour resultions of Kodacolour 100?
Alex.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Re: Seeking advice on solarization.
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:05:48 GMT

In article <19869@drutx.ATT.COM> chuck@drutx.ATT.COM (LucianoC) writes:
> I have attempted this on a 
> number of occasions with limited success. I would like to know what 
advice
> is out there about producing dramatic solarized images

If you can locate it, try a special developer called Solarol, I believe.  
You might have to call a few mail order houses. Hunt Drug in Massachusetts 
used to stock it in their store.

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Re: Nikon f401s comments
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:21:57 GMT

| Nikon 6006 + 28-70mm :   $482+$342 = $824

			-Alvin_C._Shih

Dell's has nice ads, but very high prices. The Nikon N6006
is going for about $349 mail-order. The 28-70 is widely
advertised for $250-275. I'd guess that Dell's prices for
Canon gear are similar inflated.
				   -Alan



Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm)
Subject: Solarization/Sabattier
Organization: Ocean Sciences Centre
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:33:27 GMT


	Are we talking about Sabattier effect or Solarization
	around here on the group?  They are two different
	processes, often given the same name of Solarization.
	I have only seen one image that was truly solarized:
	'Black Sun' by A. Adams.  There may be others, I just 
	haven't seen them.  My point is academic, but I would like
	to see the terms used properly.  : )

	Btw, I saw a *blurb* in Photo Life (Cdn mag) that the
	Minolta 9xi tops out at 1/12000 sec and sync at 1/300 sec.
	1/12000 sec is incredible, but pictures of the sun just
	don't do it for me without foreground!

-- 
  
    Craig Hamm, 		From 'Viz', Victor Pratt, the stupid twat
    Memorial University	        Biker: "My bike's got a flat, Vic"
    DoD #1500,           	Vic:   "Really? Whereabouts is it living?"
    '81 Maxim 650 
    ----

Xref: sparky rec.photo:15082 alt.cd-rom:2831 gnu.misc.discuss:2796 misc.int-property:889
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Date: 29 Aug 1992 00:35:40 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Aug27.191008.8372@kodak.kodak.com> axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman) writes:
>There are many reasons for this, including the need to maintain some kind of 
>control over the image quality issues.  If "joe blow" decides to hack together 
>a Photo CD transfer service, and he's doesn't do the compression correctly, 
>or decides not to write the hi-res data (it's much faster), his cost savings
>will ultimately hurt Kodak.  Licensing is one way to keep tabs on quality.

How does licensing guarantee that the licensee is competent?  Lots of
high-quality software is written on tiny budgets, and lots of crap is
written by $billion companies.  Once someone pays their license fee you
don't have any control over the quality of the resulting product, do you?

In fact, what if the licensee takes the funds for purchasing the license
from his QA budget? :-(
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: Rick.Moore@f333.n115.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: T-Max Films
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:03:56 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992


 >> Interestingly enough, T-Max sheet film has turned out to be 
 >> dynamite with the printing-out process that I use for my 
 >> large-format work.

 >  Well, you have to admit, you're doing slightly specialized 
 >  work. ;-)

Absolutely.  T-Max obviously requires rigorous controls in exposure and
development, expecially when using 35mm.  I don't think Kodak should try to
sell T-Max as a replacement for Tri-X.  Tri-X is one of the most forgiving,
flexible emulsions around.  I think T-Max is much better compared to Pan-X,
even T-Max 400.  Both respond well (or in the case of Pan-X, responded) to
compensating developers. 

Still, it's quite a boon for me to see Kodak release a new, state-of-the-art
emulsion that works well with historical processes.  Usually, each year brings 
fewer, not more, Kodak materials for me to use.  I'm down to three
hundred-sheet boxes of Studio Proof in my deep freeze, and when it's gone,
twenty years of my working experience (and many decades of experience of
thousands of older photographers) with the material will be of anecdotal value 
only.  I know Kodak has to make money, but I still hate to see the older
emulsions and printing materials bite the dust.

On the other hand, I understand that Zone VI is selling a German POP, and
platinum and palladium materials are now back in production and available here 
in the States.  I'll be trying the Zone VI stuff in a few months.  Otherwise, 
it's back to buying outdated gelatin paper, fixing it out, washing, drying,
and sensitizing it myself.  At least the price of silver and gold is low these 
days.

The death of film emulsions scares me more than papers.  I can make my own
paper, but making one's own panchromatic film emulsions is more than I think I 
could handle.

--- Squish/2 v1.01
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 21:42:50 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Subject: Re: large format, zone system, hat hair and other silliness
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Keywords: 

kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden) writes how great
single-frame 35mm rolls would be, and says:

|>And you have the added benefit that 35mm doesn't
|>promote hat hair.  8^)

Then feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman) writes (quite correctly)
why single-frame 35mm rolls would still be vastly inferior to 4x5 film
holders, and says:

>I'll take hat hair any day!

So, my question:

	What's hat hair?  Do I have it?  Should I be concerned?  Unless
	it's fatal, I'll probably keep the 4x5 camera.  I'm just
	wondering what I should be looking for. 

	Thanks to any and all for your help in this obviously serious
	matter.

:^)

Geoff ``Possible Hat Hair Sufferer'' Allen

-- 
Geoff Allen          \  Usenet is distributed network anarchy at its best---
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \   or worst, depending on what is posted on any
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \   particular day.   --David Fiedler in _Byte_

... not to mention whether the poster has hat hair.
From: kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Designing fast non-50mm lenses
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:05:09 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Tredyffrin

In article <1992Aug25.164422.10594@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com> kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden) writes:
>Just imagine, if there was no mirror to get in the way, the Nikon 6mm f/2.8
>would need a front element only 0.75mm in diameter and would sit just 6mm from
                                 ^^^^^^

Ooops!  I meant 6/2.8 = 2.143 mm!  For some strange reason I was thinking
6/(2^n) where n is 3 for the 3 stop difference between f/1 and f/2.8.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ken McFadden        kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com
>Unisys Corporation  kjm@cnmsa.tredydev.unisys.com
>P.O. Box 203        work: (215) 648-3742
>Paoli, PA 19301     home: (215) 675-0382
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: looking for information on pinhole photography.
Originator: glp@merlin
Keywords: pinhole lens
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:09:47 GMT


In article <1992Aug26.201225.11641@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, carruth@mksol.dseg.ti.com (matthew carruth) writes:
|> There was a good article in Scientific American around '85.  It went into 
|> a lot of how-to detail and had some examples.

There's also an article in _Practical Photographer_, a british
magazine commonly available in NYC - don't know about elsewhere.
Has some examples, how to compute exposure, etc.

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: markt@cup.hp.com (Mark Thompson)
Subject: Re: portrait lenses: 35mm-Format.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:04:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

I love my nikor 105 f2.8.  I can open it wide and get depth of focus that will
let me get the eyelashes in focus and the hair in back out,  and the background
muddles up very nicely.  Now i have an EOS Elan with a 28-80 and i think the
80 is too short.  I have been asking the same question that you are and i'm 
not sure if i want the 135sf or the 100 f2.  I've been wondering if the 135
was too long but the previous poster's point about giving the subject more 
space is a good one.  I find that when i'm taking portraits, with my 105,that 
i end up getting to a confertable distance and that is about waist and up 
in my viewfinder.  If i'm shooting someone that i know i usually get closer, 
but rarely do i get close enough to have their head fill my frame.


Mark
From: bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Minolta lens compatibility (Re: Photograping Whales [8008s autofocus problem])
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:28:48 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <6092@transfer.stratus.com> savoia@sw.stratus.com (Rick Savoia) writes:

		<stuff deleted>

>> P.S.  The Nikon press release actually shows how poor their
>> understanding of systems engineering is (if the fact that the old
>> SB-24 won't work fully with the new 6006 wasn't enough evidence).

		<stuff deleted>

>>
>
>	I'm not sure what you mean by this.  According to an article
>	I read here yesterday, you should be able to use any Nikon
>	lens with the new N90, just with a loss of some features,
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	which is much better, I must say, than replacing all of the
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	Minolta lenses you used to own with new ones for the xi 
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	series.  I'd rather lose some of my features and still be 
        ^^^^^^^
>	able to use some great lenses, than have to replace my
>	lenses all together.
>

	And I am not sure what YOU mean. Where did you get the 
     idea that the older Minolta "A" mount lenses will NOT work on
     the "xi" series cameras? Obviously they will not auto zoom, 
     but that seems to fall under the heading of "just with a loss
     of some features..." that you find acceptable with the Nikon.

	Perhaps you are talking about somebody coming from the
     Minolta MF line (Minolta "MC" and "MD" lenses, primarily)
     to the Minolta AF line? If that is so, it would be nice if
     you were to distinguish that fact, so new readers don't get
     confused.




							Bruce



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bruce Burden           
  bruceb@mpd.tandem.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@smdsctt.bellcore.com (C. Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: What lens to get for EOS Elan?
Reply-To: jchen@ctt.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 15:02:27 GMT

In article <BtyEwG.JwB@acsu.buffalo.edu>, tklai@acsu.buffalo.edu (Tobysze K. Lai) writes:
|> 
|> I think if you are gonna spend $175 on the EF 28-70/3.5-4.5 II, you will get
|> a better deal from the Tokina AF 28-70 SD instead.  This lens has the
|> "Super-Low Dispersion" glass, made by Tokina, in its lens barrel.  

From experience, I would not take certain suffix of third-party vendors' 
products, such as APO, SD, DL, ..., by their face values. They may have some
special optics in them, but that is not a seal for superior quality.

The discontinued Sigma 70-210/f3.5-4.5 APO is no where near the quality of
Canon 70-210 USM, although the Canon doesn't have any special glass. Even
between the Sigma 75-300 APO and Sigma 75-300 DL, the APO version is only 
marginally better (according to Popular Photography), but cost quite a bit
more.

My rule of thumb is that when in doubt, buy the original brand. Buy 
third-party products only when they have been proven good.
-- 

C. Jason Chen                 
**************E-Mail: jchen@ctt.bellcore.com
**************V-Mail: (908)699-6993
**************P-Mail: 444 Hoes Lane, 1E229, Piscataway, NJ
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ray_lee@athena.mit.edu (Yueh Z Lee)
Subject: f-1 and winder probs
Keywords: f-1
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:50:49 GMT


	A friend of mine has an Canon F-1 which is having some problems...

	 "The winder reads a different number than the camera body.  I have to 
advance three times to get to the first frame on the camera body, but the winder
says I only have to advance it twice to reach the first frame.  Then if I go 
by the camera's counter I only get ~34 shots for a 36 roll (store bought) when 
I should get at least 36.  Also, sometimes the last two frames will overlap."
	

	Any ideas on fixes? Is it a standard problem?

	His email address is jrt2@cec2.wustl.edu


						Thanks a bunch!

							Yueh Lee
-- 
===============================================================================
						Yueh Z. Lee
==============================================================================   
From: peterd@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Peter Davidoff)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:29:48 GMT
Subject: Re: looking for information on pinhole photography.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Greeley, CO
Newsgroups: rec.photo

Pinhole Photography
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bostick and Sullivan, the folks who sell the Pd and Pt kits also sell
reprints of old articles.  They have a set on Pinhole Photography.  I
don't remember how much it sold for, does make for fine reading, and
didn't cost more than the repro costs.

Also, Jay Bender, maker of the BenderView camera kit wrote a monograph
on pinhole photography.  He may have some still in publication.

Both folks advertise in the back of most camera mags, but if you can't
find the number I'll look it up and post it.

BTW, Jay has done quite a bit of Pinhole work, it was published in a
book reviewing a Santa Fe (?) pinhole exhibit.  He also likes to do
pinhole video.

  Peter
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: frank@truevision.com (Frank Loffel)
Subject: Popping slides and curved field lenses
Organization: Truevision Inc., Indianapolis, IN
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 04:57:06 GMT

Here come a few really tough questions:

Why do slides pop when projected (heated up)?
Is there a glassless mount that prevents popping?
Are curved field lenses designed to correct curvature before or after popping
occurs?
When is the slide more curved: Before or after popping?

I know that mounting a slide between glass will provide good center to edge
sharpness with a flat field lens. However, I believe that it's not a good
idea to mount originals between glass, because they a) get baked quite a bit
and b) might deteriorate because of lack of air. The alternative is to dupe
the originals and project the dupe using glass mounts. Pretty complicated.

So overall, my desperate last question is:

Is there a way to project original slides in glassless mounts with perfect
center to edge sharpness?

I'm really tired of viewing my pictures with my thumb on the manual focus
toggle on the projector remote.

Hey, watching the vacation slides should be at least as much fun as taking
them, right?



-- 
-- Frank Loffel, Truevision, Inc., uunet!epicb!frank frank@truevision.com :-) --
Xref: sparky rec.photo:15079 alt.cd-rom:2830 gnu.misc.discuss:2795 misc.int-property:888
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:11:57 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:

>Why is that even an issue, there is a Photoshop plug-in in the works that
>will allow you to just pull images off the Photo-CD.  Then with Photoshop
>you could save them into whatever format you wanted.....and you still have
>your high resolution unmodifed  original on the Photo-CD.

Already available for $39.00.  See my related post for details and ordering
information.  The something-for-nothing pinheads have really outdone
themselves this time (not referring to you, Gary.)

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property