HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Wratten  CB and CC Decamired shifts ( FAQ? )
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 09:02:15 GMT
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
NNTP-Posting-Host: lannert.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
Summary: Wrats!

In article <1992Oct9.044304.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:

> [previous discussion deleted]
> 
> 		+13.1		85B
> 		+11.2		85
>		+8.1		85C
> 		+5.2		85EF
                                ^^^^
This should probably read "81EF" (designed for conversion from 3850 K
to 3200 K = type B film with "white" flashbulbs, I presume).

BTW, does anybody know why Kodak coined these filter identifications
with no obvious regularity? For some filters, "C" is "stronger" than
"B" (cf. 81C:81B, 82C:82B), for others it's just the other way round
(80C:80B). And what does "Wratten" mean? Was there a certain Mr Wratten
involved?? (And what, please, is the correct pronunciation? Like
'rat'+'ten'?)

Sorry for giving information worth < $.02 and asking questions for
>> $2 ...  ;-)
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Gedanken sind nicht stets parat,
man schreibt auch, wenn man keine hat."             Wilhelm Busch
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jamesp@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Peroulas)
Subject: Re: 430EZ Question
Keywords: EOS10s, 430EZ
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:52:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.184656@ece.arizona.edu> pardede@ece.arizona.edu (Ferdinand M. Pardede) writes:
>I do have questions, however, about the Speedlite itself.
>I used it several times with my EOS 10s camera.  When I used it in
>Aperture Priority (Av) to give myself flexibility to choose my own
>aperture, the speed indicator (i.e. the number telling me the speed the
>camera is taking) was blinking.  Similar thing happened when I used it
>in Speed Priority (Tv), the aperture indicator was blinking.  I have
>read the manual page to page carefully, but no explanation found. 
>(There ARE some information about this blinking problem, but the manual
>only gives explanations for other EOS cameras, excluding the EOS 10s.)
>
>Can anybody explain this to me?
>
>Thank you,
>
>
>--F.M.P.

I have the exact same setup (i.e. 10s with 430ez) and I think that what is
happening is that the shutter speed for the apreture you chose ends up
being faster than 1/125 sec. You cannont use your flash above this speed
and the camera is trying to tell you this.

						-JP
From: joee@cabezon.uucp (Joe Eckardt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Underwater photography questions
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:00:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: cabezon.1992Oct14.180044.191
Organization: Logic Modeling Corporation of Beaverton Oregon

I about to take a trip to Hawaii and would like to take my 3d
camera with me snorkling.  While I already have a EWA-Marine
housing which I've used with my SLR with good results, the
3d camera poses a couple of new problems which I hope someone
out there might be able to advise me on.

The camera in question is a fixed focus camera (f5.6) with a
normal depth of field of 5' to oo.  Now, in water that depth
will be altered.  Also, I'm expecting that a typical subject
will actually be closer than usual, say 3' or so (although
not having snorkeled in Hawaii I'm definately guessing this)
so I'm presuming a close-up filter will be required.  Does anyone
have any experience using close-up filters underwater?  What
strength did you find most useful?  Does anyone know how to
calculate the effective depth of field for a given lense/filter
combination underwater?  And finally, does any have any  
recommendations or advice in general?

Thanks for any feedback anyone can give me.

		Joe Eckardt
		Logic Modeling Corporation 
		(formally Logic Automation Incorporated)

            Please use one of these return addresses instead of 
            the one on the return address line:

		joee@lmc.com   		,or
		...!uunet!lmc.com!joee
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa)
Subject: Re: Pop Photography (was: Cat lenses...)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:20:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.194541.5176@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
>| Hmmmm.  Previously I wasn't aware that Pop Photog *had* standards.
>
>					-Barry Sherman
>
>Pop Photography is the only magazine I know of (well, maybe Vogue
>is another one) that people buy primarily for the advertising. :->
>
>					    -Alan

two that occurr to me are shutterbug and computer shopper...
<dp>
From: mmrwlm@sn116.uca (Wanda L McCrae)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: FREELANCE PHOTOGRAPHY
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:23:30 GMT
Reply-To: mmrwlm@sn116.uca
Distribution: usa
Organization: General Electric

EASY WORK! EXCELLENT PAY!
Taking snapshots. Send a self-addressed,
stamped envelope to:

	Photos: #1
        c/o W. McCrae
	P.O. Box 962
	Utica, NY 13503-0962

No E-mail requests, please.

---
__________________________________________________________________
Wanda L. McCrae            | "If you didn't want to go through the
mmrwlm@sn370.utica.ge.com  |  harvest, you shouldn't have let that
                              farmer plant your crop!"
                                 - Ob/Gyn to Murphy Brown
From: wjh@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (william.j.hery)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Commercial development of TMAX-3200 film
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:16:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

Has anyone had any success with commercial developing of TMAX 3200 film?

I normally shoot color slide film, but I recently shot a roll of TMZ
to take advantage of the high speed film in a dark night club. The only
local (Morristown NJ) place that I could find to process the film was a
place that sent it to Kodalux (which has done a good job on my slides in
the past), and the results were very disappointing: all the negatives
(including those taken under "normal" conditions) looked significantly
under-exposed (OR underdeveloped). Second, everything (indluding the
sprocket hole areas) have a somewhat grey cast to them, not the almost
clear look I'm used to from TRI-X negatives.

I double checked camera film speed setting (which hadn't been changed since
the TMZ was shot), and it was correct. I verified that the camera's
(Nikon FE-2) meter reading was correct by matching it against another
camera. I compared the exposures on the first half the roll (noticably
underexposed/underdeveloped) to slides taken with Ektachorme 400 (perfect
exposures) at the same location, under the same condition a few minutes
before I loaded the TMZ. The film was kept
refirgerated until first used, but then was in the camera approximately
2 weeks before it was finished and sent out for processing.

Am I correct in thinking that the film was not processed as it should have
been? Any suggestions for someplace that does a GOOD job of processing TMZ
commercially? Or do I have to do it myself to get a decent job done?
(Time, lack of a darkroom, and concern for what the chemicals might do
to the septic system I have at my house make this a less attractive
alternative, although I used to do my own darkroom work several years ago.)

On a related question, has anyone tried the Scotch ASA 640 Tungsten slide
film? From the ads, it sounds like it might be appropriate for the concert
& jazz club pictures I want to take (although a bit slow). Does anyone
know if it can be pushed, and with what results?

Bill Hery
AT&T Bell Labs
201-386-2362
hery@att.COM
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis)
Subject: Re: Opinions on the Canon EF 28mm.
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:57:41 GMT

In <robert.718501213@labtam> robert@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Robert Groom) writes:

>news@walter.bellcore.com writes:

>>In article <1992Oct5.205304.1505@news.columbia.edu> fag2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Farul A Ghazali) writes:
>>>Does anybody have any good/bad comments about the Canon EF 28mm lens?
>>>How does it compare to a zoom, say the EF 28-70mm II or the EF 28-80mm
>>>USM (the 28mm end, of course)? Thanks.

>>It is superior lens carrying a bargain price tag. Go get one while they
>>last. Not only it easily outperforms either of the zoom lenses optically,
>>it also gives you f2.8 instead of f3.5.

>These comments echo Canon's own description in their "EF Lenses" brochure:

>"The EF 28mm f/2.8 is the most affordable wide-angle lens in the Canon line,
>making it quite attractive for beginning photographers.  An excellent choice
[etc...]

>>I got a 28-80, but still use the 28 a lot.

>>C. Jason Chen 

>I have a 28mm too but I have rarely used it since I got the 28-80 f/2.8-4L.
>This L zoom _is_ sharper than the fixed lens, whereas the "bargain" zooms
>are definitely not.  Another important point to remember is that the fixed
>EF28mm f/2.8 focuses down to 0.3m whereas the 28-80 zooms only get to 0.5m.
>Getting in closer can make a big difference when you want a huge dramatic
>subject in the foreground with vast expanses of sharp background.

As fixed focal length lenses go, in my opinion the EF 28mm is not
impressive.  I also have the 28-80/3.5-5.6 USM and the fixed 28mm is
better than the zoom, but I don't doubt that the 28-80L zoom is
sharper.

The fixed 28mm is inexpensive, and a pretty good buy.  However, the
(more expensive) fixed 24mm and 35mm are definitely better.  I imagine
the 20mm is also quite nice, but have only used the manual focus
version, the FD 20/2.8, which is excellent.
--
Al Goldis           alan-goldis@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sheldon@makesys.com (Sheldon)
Subject: Any info on a "Spirotone 18mm/F3.2" ?
Organization: Make Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:59:44 GMT

I'm looking for wide-angle lenses for Pentax K mount, and I ran across a
"Spirotone" 18mm lens. I've never heard of this brand; does anyone out there
know anything about them? Are they any good?
The lens looked to be in good shape, but it looked kind of old.

Thanx in advance for any information you have.

-sheldon white-

sheldon@makesys.com
From: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: moonlit landscapes / stars (4x5)
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:33:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine

In article <1992Oct15.200310.6275@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct15.011901.9934@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, franz@cs.washington.edu (Franz G. Amador) writes:
>>> Does anyone know a good way to pick an exposure for a moonlit
>> landscape?  Seems like there ought to be a rule equivalent to "sunny
>>> f/16" for the full moon; the half moon ought to be one stop darker;
>>> etc.  I doubt my light meter will work; it reads only to EV 1 (ISO
>>> 100).
>>> 
>> 
>> ===============================================================
>> Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
>> ===============================================================
>> 
	If anybody out there has been following this thread, they will 
notice that Bob Atkins' explanation for diameters etc. differs from mine
(David Chorley) For the record I would like to say that he is right and I 
was not, so I sit corrected. 
	The rest of my posting I stand by. Also has anyone out there had 
any experience with pre-flashing films to lower the contrast:
		The idea is you supply a brief burst of light energy which 
is not enough to fog the film, but "primes" the film to record low 
intensity images.
	With reciprocity failure on colour films: do the three colours show 
equal amounts of failure, is it unpredictable/inconsistent or what?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Cat lenses - Pop Photography - Cambron
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:36:38 GMT

The Nov issue of Pop Photog has an article on Cat (catadioptric or mirror)
lenses. What lens do they show as an example? A Nikon? - no. A Canon? - no.
Maybe the Minolta AF mirror? - no. They show a CAMBRON, the house brand of
everyones favorite store, Cambridge. Even in their list of available mirror
lenses they list evryone you would expect....plus CAMBRON. I have noticed
this before in Pop (and maybe Modern) Photog. Lots of references to Cambron
products. Now I'll leave it to conspiracy theorists as to why this is so, and
why the "check rating" scheme applies to all advertisers, but it does make
you think, doesn't it?

PS the article isn't a bad review of mirror lenses. What they don't mention
is that very few (if any) mirror lenses are as sharp as their refractive
counterparts. In fact they say the reflex design gives sharper, contrastier
(yes, contrastier, that's the word they used) images, due to the lack of
chromatic aberation. They neglect the fact that greater diffraction effects
(due to the secondary obstruction) reduces contrast and sharpness and that
the optical design is more prone to flare (if not well baffled) and thus
to lower contrast. (by the way, this doesn't mean mirror lenses are no
good - I use one myself sometimes, when size and weight are critical factors).
    Their ray diagram also shows the mirrors as second surface
mirrors, not first surface mirrors. Makes you wonder who proof reads these
articles? Still, not a bad article by Pop Photog standards.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mandayrv@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Atilla the Hun)
Subject: Re: Besseler 23C enlarger - prints too fast
Keywords: condenser enlarger, B&W
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:16:50 GMT

In article <Bw82Hs.BCq@hplabs.hpl.hp.com> hintzman@hpljah.hpl.hp.com writes:
>I am using a Besseler 23C enlarger to print B&W.  The condenser head
>has a 75 watt bulb in it.  My problem is that this setup is too fast.
>For a typical 8x10 on Ilford Multigrade FB, an exposure time might 
>be 10 seconds at f/11 for a 35mm negative (50 mm enlarging lens.)
>I would like to be printing for about 30 seconds for repeatability,
>to do burning and dodging, etc.  Also, I would prefer not to print 
>everything at f/16; I know this is not the sharpest aperture I could
>use.  Does anybody else have this enlarger and notice
>this problem?

I had similar problems with the Omega B22. But I figured out a way of
getting long exposures. My enlarger equipment came with some polycontrast
filters. I just use these *ON REGULAR PAPER* and get quite extended exposure
times.



-- 
ramanand@pumpkin.ece.uc.edu
From: jspirer@rain.next.com (Jeff Spirer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: technical info (was Popular Photography, then Nikon magazine)
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:10:48 GMT

In article <13373@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM  
(Dave Bernard) writes:
>> To deal with your first question... I've long wondered how they get the
> exposure information on photos they print- do these photographers really
> wander around with notepads?  I doubt it; I think they often make it up  
for 
> printing, because the magazine seems to think that readers see this info
> as vital.  Similarly, I wonder how many published photographers really  
use
> Nikons, etc.  Could it be that they "enhance" medium-priced brands,  
because
> they think it makes their photo somehow more "professional?"  Just a  
thought.
> 
> 	Dave

I wonder about the exposure info also, but I think that the camera info is  
probably correct.  Why?  Because a very large proportion of the photos are  
made with *manual* cameras rather than what the magazine pushes.  If they  
wanted to enhance their brands, wouldn't they choose to all have F4s  
instead of FM2s etc etc.?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
Subject: Thanks all for the info.
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:29:48 GMT

Helo all

I wanto to express my deepest thanks for all the good people
whom took their time to reply to my "Need help w/ old cameras"
article.

I will answer all of you in due time, since I'm very busy with
some graduate work.

Frank
From: monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 8x10, Christopher Burkett, light sources
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:29:59 GMT
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis

In article <5360816@hplsla.hp.com> andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino) writes:
>
>About this idea of shooting directly on Cibachrome in a view camera, and
>the resulting image being backwards... will one of the proponents of this
>assertion please explain why Polaroid film exposed in a view camera doesn't
>come out "backwards"? It seems to me that in both cases the emulsion is facing
>the lens during exposure and in both cases the viewer looks at the emulsion 
>side of the print. And Polaroids don't come out backwards, neither when 
>exposed in a view camera or any other other Polaroid-capable camera, which 
>all use a taking lens to expose the emulsion side of the film which is 
>then viewed. Do extra-terrestials get involved when Cibachrome is exposed?
>
>    % Andy Cassino                                       %

   If you go back and check your Polaroid film, I think you will
   discover that the surface which receives the exposure faces
   opposit to the direction of the surface which produces the
   print for viewing.
   In other words, the light sensitive emulsion faces the lens,
   but the final image is stored on a receptor sheet which faces away
   from the lens.
   (You did have me sweating on that one, for a bit. :-)  )
From: uli@i13d5.ira.uka.de (Uli Bodenhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Agfa Multicontrast
Date: 13 Oct 1992 21:06:21 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i13d5.ira.uka.de

In article <1992Oct13.161242.17342@sys.sweden.dg.com>, robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:
|> Has anyone tried these products? A dealer I visited today said that
|> the Multicontrast developer performed better for most RC papers
|> than other developers. The paper is also very good and significantly
|> better than Ilford's Multigrade paper. The new Kodak polycontrast
|> paper should be something extra, he also said.
|> 
|> Can anyone confirm this?

I like the Agfa Multicontrast (or ist it called Polycontrast???)
paper as well as the Ilford MC. Not the same, different, but as good
in my opinion...

	Uli

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dcho@scott.skidmore.edu (douglas cho)
Subject: Re: Hong Kong buying?
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:48:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.132136.15165@eua.ericsson.se> Harald.Brandt@eua.ericsson.se (Harald Brandt) writes:
>Hi!, I will be going to Hong Kong now on Mo 19/10, and had in mind to buy 
>a large quiver camera equipment: Canon EOS 5 (if they have it), 28-105 (if 
>they have it), 200/2.8, teleconverter X1.4, wide angle 24 and perhaps 20, 
>or perhaps 20-35/2.8 (if low price). After that, I'll go to Japan, and 
>after that L.A USA.
>
>My question is: which is the best place in Hong Kong to buy it, especially 
>regarding minimizing risks of being defrauded in any way, and particularly 
>regarding proper warranty that will be in effect also in Sweden? Please 
>answer before Su 18/10 evening to the following e-mail:
>Miklos.Boda@eua.ericsson.se
>
>Thanks in advance.
>


I do not know where you will be staying in Hong Kong, but if you ever
happen to be on Hong Kong Island, then there's one place I'd advise
you to pay a visit at least.

The shop is called EXPO and is situated right behind the Causeway Bay
Mitsukoshi department store--I've forgotten what the street name is.
They are the cheapest in the area, and they really are courteous. If
they don't have what you want, they will at least tell you where to
go.

BTW, as a rule of thumb, do not ever attempt to shop in Tsim Sha Tsui
area or Mongkok. They either rip you off financially or take some
parts out for a cheaper price.

Generally, I found shops in Central(not Admiralty) and Causeway Bay
reliable.


Cheers,

Doug.

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Harald.Brandt@eua.ericsson.se (Harald Brandt)
Subject: Hong Kong buying?
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Sweden
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:21:36 GMT

Hi!, I will be going to Hong Kong now on Mo 19/10, and had in mind to buy 
a large quiver camera equipment: Canon EOS 5 (if they have it), 28-105 (if 
they have it), 200/2.8, teleconverter X1.4, wide angle 24 and perhaps 20, 
or perhaps 20-35/2.8 (if low price). After that, I'll go to Japan, and 
after that L.A USA.

My question is: which is the best place in Hong Kong to buy it, especially 
regarding minimizing risks of being defrauded in any way, and particularly 
regarding proper warranty that will be in effect also in Sweden? Please 
answer before Su 18/10 evening to the following e-mail:
Miklos.Boda@eua.ericsson.se

Thanks in advance.

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Lens testing
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:14:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.205638.9988@walter.bellcore.com>, news@walter.bellcore.com writes:
> I tested out the 28 mm lens, I found that the resolution was greater
> than 100 l/mm in the center for apertures between 4 and 11. The edges 
> also had a respectable 63+ l/mm. This is significantly better than the 
> 28-80 USM (none-L).  I don't know how the 28-80 L performs. But I doubt
> if it would be significantly better. 
> 

Jason, could you post the way you did your test? I am intending to test my
lenses (including a 28-80L ), and any others I can borrow. To maximize the
usefullness of the data, it would help if we could share methods to facilitate
comparisons of results.

~Paul
From: jyk50@quts.ccc.amdahl.com (J Kretschmann III)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Push/Pull Processing (Was "Re: Can I "pull process" a film?") Summary:
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:54:46 GMT
Reply-To: jyk50@QUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)

In article <1992Oct12.230019.8543@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> sylve_ge@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Gerald Sylvester) writes:
>
>Isn't it usually better to overexpose, instead of underexposing (shooting
>100 at ISO 200), negative film for better color saturation?
>

Having just received back a roll of Kodak 200 Plus shot at various
ASA settings, I can say that this film can go several stops over-exposed
(ASA 25) but very few stops under-exposed (400 ASA).  I had the prints
developed at a one-hour place.  I actually found that the shots taken
at lower ASA settings (ASA 25-50) were clearer.  Those shots taken with
ASA over 200 (ASA 400-1600) had a milky-white haze over them.