HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jacobs@cerritos.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: F4s /8008s etc (Nikon)
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:52:30 PST
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA

In article <lakhindr.718320490@bowmore.NSD.3Com.COM>, lakhindr@ESD.3Com.COM (Lakhinder Walia) writes:
> hi folks: 
> This is regarding the eye-piece shutter provided for F4, and a small 
> plastic masking cup for 8008s.
> I dont understand why should they be there at all, because my premise is:
> the metering has to be some where in the camera body - but not in the prism
> housing : for how would otherwise the matrix balance and flash fill exposure
> work..? the reason being that the measurements have to be done during  the 
> actual exposure time, i.e when the prism housing is shut-off by the mirror.
> And since the prism housing module is completely cut-off, why bother about
> putting a shutter/blind on the eye-piece contained therein..?
> thanks.
> -lakhinder walia

The eye-piece shutter is meant to block out extraneous light during time
exposures, such as astral photography, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with
metering.

Karl
 
________________________________________________________________________________Karl Jacobs - Jacobs@cerritos.edu
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: former nikon owner
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:20:40 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

In article <1992Sep30.162445.6981@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk) writes:
...
> But too late, after 15 years with Nikon I switched to Canon last month.

So, What did you get?
~Paul
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: cathy@techbook.com (Cathy Gaupo)
Subject: Re: Nicon F3 camera/motordrive THANKS EVERYONE!
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:57:03 GMT

Many, Many people responded to my question and thanks!
My question was so simple and I really am pleased to see
how actually nice you all are!

I will call the nikon 1 -800 number that several of you
gave me.  

Thanks again,

Cathy

-- 
cathy@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with InterCom
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81)
From: benoit@netcom.com (BENOIT SCHILLINGS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Objectives for Olympus OM-1
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:25:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

I'm looking for a 200 mm f <= 4 objective for my OM-1.
I need to get a good sharpness up to the side and
would like to hear about experience with cheap
objectives.

What to buy, at what price etc...


Thanks,		Benoit


benoit@netcom.com
benoit@be.com
From: kmorgan@dante.nmsu.edu (Kevin D Morgan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: FOR SALE: CAMERAS
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:13:56 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM

FOR SALE:

Nishika 3D Camera.  Use regular 35mm film to take 3D pictures.
Includes camera, case, flash, and instuctional video.  Never
been used.  $300+shipping.

Reply by email:  kmorgan@nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Where to develop films with flash-off pictures?
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 11:39:01 GMT

In article <29SEP92074704@tiamat.hacks.arizona.edu>, paulf@tiamat.hacks.arizona.edu (Paul Frankenstein, Bs.D.) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.165934.1006@leland.Stanford.EDU>, jerzy@leland.Stanford.EDU (J. Czaplicki) writes...
...
>>Could anyone recommend some place where they would do it
>>correctly ?
> 
> Just go back and tell them you want those negatives printed with the proper
> filtration for tungsten lighting.

Can't do. The blue layer is so underexposed, that most of the image will be lost
in the toe.

Te use of a 80C or 80D is the way to go. The loss of 2 stops is an illusion in
a way, as you were underexposing the blue layer by about 2 stops anyway.

~Paul
From: serge@mais.hydro.qc.ca (Serge Oligny)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Rotary Processors. e.g., Jobo CPE-2 Plus
Keywords: Rotary Processors, Film Processing, Paper Processing
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:46:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hydro-Quebec (DSB)

mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow) writes:


>Doesn't Patterson have a rotary processor as well? And I think I
>saw in an Adorama ad a rotary processor. Anyone know anything about
>these things? If so, please post.
>-- 

Yes, Paterson does have a rotary processor.  It is somewhat smaller in size
than a Jobo, it is based on the same principle of operation though.

Things the Paterson does not have compared to Jobo (**to my best knowledge**)

   .  a tube lifting device (you do it manually),
   .  a motor driven proc. tube (you do it by hand with a side handle),
   .  an adaptable bottle holder (space for 3 bottle & 3 graduate),
   .  a full set of tubes (seem it have only one for print up to 11x14).

The Paterson processor seems sturdy enough and posess a water bath heater
and circulator device.  I have seen it selling for around $400 CAN here in
Montreal.

In my opinion it is a nice device but if you intend to seriously use such
a processor, you are better off with the Jobo.  For a similar investment
from the start, it will give you much more room to grow in the future.

Serge Oligny
----
 



--
______________________________________________________________________________
                                      This is a personal opinion that have
serge @mais.hydro.qc.ca               nothing to do with my employer.
______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shun@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (shun.cheung)
Subject: Canon or Cannon?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:31:49 GMT

In article <SCHOOLER.92Oct1174052@turing.apollo.hp.com> schooler@apollo.hp.com (Richard Schooler) writes:
>
>  And yet another pet peeve, the spelling of 'Canon'.  Even in
>Shutterbug Ads one often sees 'Cannon'!  Don't people even look at the
>equipment they're selling?

Well, the Canon logo is in front on the prism. Those people must be
serious photographers who only look at the back of the camera body,
into the viewfinder. And they never change lenses. :-)
-- 
-- Shun Cheung,    electronic: shun.cheung@att.com    voice: (908) 615-5135
     HR 1A-304, AT&T Bell Labs, 480 Red Hill Road, Middletown, NJ, 07748 USA
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Tokina 28-70/3.5-4.5 MF vs AF question
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:35:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Oct6.215513.13486@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> rdb1@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ronald.j.deblock..jr) writes:

>Pentax has the best record on  lens compatibility of any brand that I
>know of.  Even with Nikon, certain old lens/new camera and new lens/old
>camera combinations are incompatible and possibly damaging to the equipment.

I beg to disagree.  I own a bunch of old screw-mount Pentax stuff (all
bought new).  One day I mounted my Pentax 50mm f/4 macro lens on my
Ashai (Pentax) bellows.  A pin on the back of the lens dropped into a
screw hole on the bellows and the lens would not come off.  I called
Pentax, and was basically told "Tough Luck."  Now admittedly, this was
a long time after they discontinued screw mount, but I was really
annoyed at their attitude.  (The reason it had never happened to be
when the stuff was new was that I had always used a lens reversing
adapter when using the bellows.  But then one day I didn't have it
handy.)  

  -- David Jacobson
From: llamas@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Winston Llamas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Pentax 645 wanted
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:48:14 GMT
Reply-To: llamas@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Distribution: usa

I am looking for a used Pentax 645 body (must be in excellent working 
condition), as well as a 70 f2.8 and a 150 f4 lens.  If you have such equipment
that you want to sell, please send email.  Thanks

Winston
--
#========================================================#
# Winston M. Llamas       email: llamas@itd.nrl.navy.mil #
#========================================================#
From: savoia@sw.stratus.com (Rick Savoia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Free copy of Nikon World
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:37:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep29.200032.130609@ua1ix.ua.edu>, lnieplo3@ua1ix.ua.edu (Jaroslaw Nieplocha) writes:
> 
> In article <EPPERLY.92Sep29124931@osnome.che.wisc.edu> you write:
> >I filled out the warranty card for my N5005 in January of this year,
> >and I have yet to receive my free copy of Nikon magazine.  I checked
> >the little box that says not to send me stuff that I haven't
> >requested, so maybe that means that I don't get a free copy of the
> >magazine.  However, it cannot really be considered free if you must
> >give them the authority to use your address for advertising purposes.
> >
> 
> 
> I have not received my free copy either. (6006, March 92).
> They promised a free copy of Nikon World for responding to their questionnaire.
> 
> It seems that Nikon wants to get customer info for free and we should
> forget about this free issue. You got the camera - what else do you want ? 
> 
> Is there anybody among the readers who actually received it ?
> 
> JN


Yup!  I finally got my free issues one year after I bought my 8008s and 
SB-24.  Of course, I got two of the same issues even though I had sent
them in a  bit apart!  So, don't hold your breath waiting for it!

Rick
========================================================
Rick Savoia                     | I love the smell of
savoia@watts.sqa.stratus.com    | a crash in the morning
Rick_Savoia@vos.stratus.com     | It smells like victory
========================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sparks@col.hp.com (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: B&W.Tone sep.FB or RC? Neg size?
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:39:33 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

In article <46520041@hpscit.sc.hp.com> feltman@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Robert Feltman) writes:
>Hope this subject hasn't been covered recently....
>
>Two questions:
>
>1. B&W neg size. I read that the larger the neg, the better the tone
>   separation. Is this true? Why? Why not?

I don't know if better tone seperation is the right phrase, but larger
negatives will give smoother gray tone transisions.  Maybe it's even less 
tone seperation on local scale.  You don't get abrupt changes from one tone
to the next where only smooth transisions should occur.  Part of this
is due to finer grain in the final print, but this isn't all of it.  Part
is due to just having the subject recorded on a bigger area of negative
that can more accurately record the subject tonalities.  Noise in the
recording is a smaller portion of the image with a larger negative.

>2. B&W paper. Ignoring the archival question, does fiber make a better
>   print than RC. In terms of what the print looks like to the viewer.
>   Is there a general concensus amongst pros? Amateurs? What are the 
>   factors involved if there is a difference?

If you ask fine art photographers, gallery owners and art collectors,
I'm sure the consensus is that FB paper is better.  Amoung the general
public who knows.  I read an article by Alfred Blaker (a big RC fan) who
showed a bunch of prints to varous people (mostly non-photographers I
would guess) that tended to pick the glossy RC prints over the FB ones
(I think the prints were framed and under glass where subtile surface
textures won't be as visible and the glossy surface RC shows fine detail
better).  I think the biggest difference today in the look of FB vs RC
prints is the surface gloss or texture.  I think an air dried glossy FB
print has a feeling of depth that you cannot get with any RC surface.
The glossy RC paper is too glossy and the various matte, semi-matte or
perl surfaces are kind of plasticly looking.  People who do not
dry-mount their prints may like RC prints better because they lay
flatter.  I think if I was forced to never dry mount my prints again and
just use paper hinges of some kind (like some fine art photographers
seem to do), I might switch to RC paper.  I think you just need to
decide for yourself which you like better.

John Sparks
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Need Nikon Body Repair (K & S?)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:18:38 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Oct1.160229.26047@adobe.com> meastman@adobe.com (Mark Eastman) writes:
>After running about 250 rolls over the past two years
>in a Nikon FM2 Body that I bought new, the shutter lever
>jammed with the mirror stuck about halfway between its
>normal position and where it tops out. Naturally this happened
>right in the middle of a shoot :^(
>
>Has anyone had a similar experience? Also I'm interested
>in hearing about anyone's experience with Keeble & Schucat's
>repair service or any other Nikon service recommendations.	

Yes, with an FM.  I bought a used Nikon FM from an advertisement here
on the net.  Within 24 hours of when I took it home the winder lever
jammed at about half-stroke.  I hadn't even loaded any film into it
yet.  (I don't remember what position the mirror was in, sorry.)

Fortunately the person I bought it from was very honest and completely
refunded my money and took it back.  He told me that this thing had
happened a few months before, and he had taken it to Apollo to be
repaired.  He had run only 2 or 3 rolls of film through it, then
decided to upgrade to an 8008s, so he had offered it for sale.
Anyway, he tried to get Apollo to redo the repair at no charge, but
they refused, since it had been over 90 days.

Needless to say, I was not highly impressed by Apollo.  Even though
it was legal for them to do what they did, it was obvious that their
"repair" had not been adequate and they were unwilling to make it
good.

  -- David Jacobson

These opinions are my own, and not those of my employer.


From: rkatos@hpunila.MSR.HP.COM (Ray Katos)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:31:38 GMT
Subject: Re: 4x5 Developing Tank and Polaroid 55 posi/neg questions
Organization: Hewlett Packard Sales, Naperville IL
Newsgroups: rec.photo

Yes. I've used the combi tank. Fine product. Its advantage over cheaper
tanks is it allows inversion agitation.

Polaroid 55 P/N is a unique product.  It will produce good negatives, i.e.
sharpness, grain, scale.  The film size is 4x5, the image size is less due to
mechanical packaging and process artifacts. That means there is gunk and 
paper that hangs over on to the negative.  The sodium sulfite is cheap
but it is so concentrated anywhere you get it turns into a white spot.

It is used for you guessed it quick results.  Most often for proofing and 
checking complicated set ups you don't want or can't recreate.  Scientific
and industrial research places use it by the case.  
From: johnson@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Cole Johnson)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:46:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Wedding, a list of standard shots
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
From: rdb1@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ronald.j.deblock..jr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Tokina 28-70/3.5-4.5 MF vs AF question
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:55:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsj.1992Oct6.215513.13486
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct6.185122.25461@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smustopo@nyx.cs.du.edu (sofjan mustopoh) writes:
>In article <BvnsGu.xs@hsi.com> jims@hsi.com (Jim Switalski) writes:
>>
>>	The K-1000 is fully manual, so the AF feature would not be useful. 
>>	However, if I got an AF Pentax in the future (which I'm not planning 
>>	to do at this time), I guess the AF could be a plus.
>>	-jims
>
>     I don't think af version can fit manual focus pentax

Yes, it can.

>
>    or is Pentax join Nikon using  the same manual focus
>    mounts in the AF mounts. 
>
>  Muskie
>

No, Nikon has joined Pentax in this area.  The Pentax MEF was the first
auto focus SLR on the market.   Sorry, I don't know the exact date.

ANY Pentax 35mm bayonet mount (K-mount) lens can be used on ANY Pentax
35mm bayonet mount camera.  Of course, some features will be lost - no
program exposure-auto focus-power zoom when a FA lens is mounted on
a K-1000.  Also, no program exposure-auto focus-power zoom with a 
K or M lens is mounted on a PZ-1.

Pentax has the best record on  lens compatibility of any brand that I
know of.  Even with Nikon, certain old lens/new camera and new lens/old
camera combinations are incompatible and possibly damaging to the equipment.

With an available adapter, you can even use screw mount lenses on a PZ-1!
Stop down metering only, though.

For the record, I own a Pentax Super Program and a Nikon N8008.
I bought the N8008 because I didn't like the SF-1n, which was Pentax's best
AF offering at the time.  Pentax didn't seem to be paying any attention
to the serious amateur market back then.

Owning incompatible cameras is a pain, but I really like the Super Program - 
it's very compact and light weight.  One of these days I may replace it if I
find an equivalent Nikon (FA?) at a good price.  Or maybe I'll replace the
N8008 with a PZ-1.

Back to the original poster's original question: I would go for the AF lens
in case I later purchased an AF camera.

-- 
Ron DeBlock  rdb1@cbnewsj.att.com  (that's a number 1 in rdb1, not letter l)
AT&T Bell Labs   Somerset, NJ  USA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

I have two questions which some experienced "zonies" should be able
to answer:

1. Do larger negs give better tone separation than smaller negs? Why?

2. Does fiber based paper produce better prints than RC, from the
   perspective of the viewer, and ignoring the archival question?

Thanks 

Bob Feltman
From: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Popluar Photography (was does Popular Photography really protect/assist its readers?)
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:54:29 GMT
Reply-To: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

David Jacobson writes:

>And, Barry, if you really want to make them stop, [[rumor mode on]]
[PopPhoto from sending undesired copies of the mag]
>just go to the Post Office and say that this magazine has been sending
>you sexually explicit material that you find offensive.  You don't
>even have to prove it, just claim it, but you could take along one of
>the issues with nudes---I think the last one has a nude painted with
>blue paint---and they will give you a form to fill out.  That gets sent
>to Pop Photo, and if they don't stop once they've received it then
>you go back to the Post Office, and the rumor is that the PO really gets
>on their case.

Hee hee! Great!  Thanks for the laugh of the day!

Barry

--


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp.       | "Any fool can face a crisis - it's     | 
| bjs@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com           |  this day-to-day living that wears you |
|                                   |  out." - Anton Chekhov                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction.  Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions.  Unfortunately, this has been  |
| said of me as well.                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: USM lens battery drain (Was Re: Experience with Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM)
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:09:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1ai1jqINNfu4@introl.introl.com>, tim@introl.com (Tim Chase) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.165104.18263@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
> >In article <1aghq1INN5td@introl.introl.com>, tim@introl.com (Tim Chase) writes:
> >> 
> >DO NOT apply when using these "L" series USM telephotos). As far As I know
> >there is no significant difference in current draw between the regular EF
> >lenses and the small USM lenses.
> 
> Strange, there have been times when a semi-worn-out battery wouldn't power
> the 100-300 USM (i.e. would practically go dead, locking up the mirror, etc.)
> but would still power a 24mm EF just fine (for a long time).
> 
> At that point, I just throw away the battery since it isn't much good if
> it only works on smaller lenses.

Interesting. Maybe Canon are not giving us the whole story. If I get a chance
this weekend I'll measure the current draw of my 35-135 USM (the only USM
lens I have at the moment) and compare it to my 28-70 and 100-300 lenses.
Maybe someone out there has already done this and could share their results?
Perhaps the EF 24mm draws much less current than the typical EF zoom?

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best)
Subject: Re: How to make a good ghost illusion?
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:24:37 GMT
Organization: your service

>    If I learned anything from this experiment, it was how to produce ghosts.
> Firing a semi-charged flash is equivalent to underexposing a subject. In fact
> some books say you SHOULD underexpose subjects in multiple exposures. This is
> because the cumulation of exposures will result in overexposure for a single
> frame. 

----------

Remember that this rule is for superimposed subjects.  The way you described
has the subject in a new and unexposed area of the film for each shot of the 
flash.  In this case, you shouldn't underexpose.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Macro Lens Opinions
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:48:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Oct04.115528.20028@bmerh85.bnr.ca> illidge@bcarh758.BNR.CA (Ed Illidge) writes:
>I am interested in getting an AF Nikon Macro Lens.  The one that I have
>my eye on is the 105/2.8.  The Nikon handbook says that although this
>is an excellent lens, it is not flat field. 
> 
>  What exactly does this mean?

It means that the locus of points that are in sharp focus is not a
plane.  Thus if you focus on something that is 20 cm away right in the
center, the normal distance to the point in perfect focus in the
corner might be 22 cm away.  (By normal distance I mean the distance
measured straight down the axis.  The total distance (hypotnuse) will
longer.)  Curvature of field is inconsequential for things like
insects and flowers, but is a disaster for postage stamps.

>  Has anyone who owns the lens found this to be a big problem?
>  Should I go for the 60mm instead?

I own the 60mm, so I can't say.

>I primarily want the lens for, surprise surprise, macro work.  I like
>that both of these lenses will go to 1:1 without tubes.  I would also
>like the 105 since I figure that I could probably get away with it as
>a protrait lens also.  Is this a reasonable assumption?

Yes, you could use it as a portrait lens.  (Some people might suggest
that you use it with a diffuser or duto something like that to reduce
its extreme sharpness, which is purportedly a liability for
portraiture.)  But the real reason you want a 105mm lens is to get
farther away from the subject.  At 1:1 the distance from the front of
the 60mm MicroNikkor to the subject is just a little over 70mm, if I
remember correctly.  The 105 gives you quite a bit more.  Insects and
other living things tend to get frightened if you get too close.  And
with the 60 I have mild trouble with the front of the lens casting shadows
on the subject.  Also if the thing you are photographing is in a cage,
aquarium, or terarium, you are limited in how close you can get.

  -- David Jacobson