HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Re: Camera Feature Wars - Photo Getting Like Video
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:00:55 GMT

| It is obvios to me that all the desired features could be included in
| one camera, but are not.  
				-Mark Goldberg

When my wife was a little girl, a Barby doll with moveable arms came out.
Her family wasn't very well off, but she just HAD to have one. Just think
of it: a doll with arms that MOVE! Six months later, the "new" model with
moveable arms AND moveable legs came out, and it was crystal clear
(even to a little girl) that the manufacturer had done that on purpose;
they could have made the arms and legs both move in the first place.

More than twenty years later, all that has changed is that design and
manufacturing techniques are so sophisticated that even highly complex
equipment like computers, camcorders and photo equipment can be upgraded
as easily as Barby dolls. It's really disgusting! My guess, though, is
that it's not all roses for these schizophrenic manufacturers. Some
people are undoubtedly seduced into trading in their perfectly good
equipment for "new improved" features they don't really need. But
many others may sit on the sidelines and buy NOTHING, too confused
to decide which features they really need, whether they should wait
for an EVEN BETTER model, ad infinitum...

| Case in point: Sony has since brought out 3 new hi8 models to superced 
| its wonderful TR81 hi8. Many are gushing over these new ones. And there 
| are rports that one of the replacements for the TR-81 - the TR-101 - may 
| itself be discontinued!!!

Rec.video was FULL of articles praising the TR-81 just a few months ago!
Oh, well; maybe it's a good opportunity to pick up a low-mileage TR-81
at a good price...

| I believe that the newer models, like the N90, really do sport exciting
| new features...

As well as some (like an illuminated LCD panel) that the 8008 should
never have been without. Nikon has certainly been more reliable than
Canon in this regard, but the mondo program modes built into the N90
are surely included for purely marketing reasons.

All things considered, I really like my N8008s. I like the spotmeter,
the built-in film advance. I even use shutter priority occasionally.
I like autofocus most of the time, but sometimes I long for the
simplicity of my old FE. It couldn't focus nearly as fast as my 8008s,
but every picture was sharp. Not so with my AF wonder camera. As good
as it is, it screws up once in awhile. Promises, promises...

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: kung@kpc.com (Kung Hsu)
Subject: Nikon equipments for sale
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:09:14 GMT

I have soem Nikon equipments for sale:

F3HP camera: 			$600, new sell for $1015 now
105mm/f2.8 AF micro lens: 	$425
35mm/f2.0 AF lens:		$200
28mm/f2.8 AIS lens:		$200

All equipments are in mint condition. All have box and U.S. warranty cards,
except 28mm lens.
If you are interested, send me email, or call:

Kung Hsu   Office: (408)987-3381     Home: (408)272-4315
From: Jimmy.Tung@dartmouth.edu (Jimmy Tung)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: candids
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:25:54 GMT
 <22437@drutx.ATT.COM>  <BxuGv9.I23@cs.dal.ca>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

> I think that I may be overly polite for this kind of thing. Should I ask
> people before I take a shot? Tell them what it's for? 

Personally, the hardest thing is to get started -- once you start
taking shots, either people ignore you (eg you are madly taking shots
during a banquet or meeting or whatever) or you become less
self-conscious.  If anybody asks, tell 'em it's for the yearbook - a
perfectly legitimate, if somewhat predictable, publication.

> I will be buying a x-300mm for EOS 650 ...

As somebody else has pointed out, 300 mm can be hard to hand-hold. 
Also, the cheaper 300's are usually slower than an equally priced
70-210.  But, if you have the bucks, or envision other uses that need
the extra 100 mm ... Sorry, I can't be more definite, but I am also
trying to decide which to get, if I ever get some spare change.  The
70-135 mm range will be good for "portraits", without getting in their
face.

> Sits: 1) someone is in the library ... (small, open cubicle)
>       2) a group of people are eating in the caf.
>   and 3) your prof is lecturing.

Again, like someone else mentioned, all these could be shot with 400
speed film, probably at f/4 or bigger at 1/15 - 1/125.  You could do
this easily with a handheld 50 mm lens, esp. if the school is picking
up the tab for film lost due to camera shake, and some loss of
sharpness will not be particularly noticable in the normal
yearbook-sized prints (assuming you don't play with the enlarger too
much to crop and zoom ;-) ).  You might have a zoom as fast as f/2.8,
but most of the less expensive Canon zooms are f/3.5 - f/5.6, -- so a
tripod, monopod, convenient ledge, wall, etc. will have to be handy.

So I guess I'd recommend just getting out there with your prime 50 mm. 
The long lens may make you feel less intrusive, but if you are feeling
self-conscious, standing off and shooting with a 300 mm will mean you
need the faster film speed or tripod [even less subtle than the
camera], the space (unless you want to be *real* up-close and personal)
[you'll probably standing away from everybody], and you'll have this 6
inch piece of glass hanging off your camera and pointed *at* someone
[arggh, I'm under survellance].  I'd feel pretty conspicuous.  People
will soon get used to you and your camera, unless you get to be
*really* annoying [let's see the ol' cafe lunch, 10 sec after ingestion
...]

In any case, get out there and take pics.  Almost free film and
processing, what else could a budding photographer ask for ...

Just my $.02...
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: Stained Negatives?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:54:43 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Nov9.192532.9093@odin.corp.sgi.com>, donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis) writes:

> In article <1992Nov9.154820.29694@bcrka451.bnr.ca>, poole@bnr.ca (Thomas
> Poole) writes:

> |> Can anyone tell me what these stains are?
> |> 
> |> I used Ilford 400 Delta 35mm film, developed for 8 min in Ilford
> |> developer, 30 seconds in the stop bath (instructions called
> |> for 10 seconds) and 1 minute in the Ilford Paper Fixer (guy
> |> at the store said Paper fixer would work fine for film).

What Ilford developer? There are many of them. Anyway, I don't think it
has anything to do with the developer, but if you processed the film in
undiluted Ilfotec HC or something, well...

> Don't scrimp on fixing!  I don't know if the dilution of Ilford's paper
> fixer is different than for film, but if you're having trouble, don't
> make compromises like that.  I'd suggest using proper fixer, for a
> good, long, healthy time.  In any case, I can't imagine 1 minute being
> enough time for any film, in any fixer, so if you are going to use
> the paper fixer, give it five minutes and see what it looks like.

He probably means the Ilford Ilfospeed paper fixer, a rapid fixer
especially intended for RC papers. It contains something that Ilford
claims will protect the resin coating or something like that. I use
it myself for RC papers. The fixing time for papers is 30 seconds
(at least). However, Ilford doesn't recommend it to be used with films.

I'd suggest the Ilford Hypam rapid fixer (which may, in fact, well be
what he used). Hypam is a rapid fixer for both films and papers. It is
used with the same dilution for both papers and films. The time is 30
seconds for papers and 2 minutes for films. For the Delta films, Ilford
recommends at least 5 minutes in this fixer. This should also be true for
most other rapid fixers.

-- 
------------------------------ END OF MESSAGE ------------------------------
Robert Claeson                Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                         robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                             CEO: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com:dg-smtp
S-164 93 KISTA                     Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
Sweden                             Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: The color developer in the E-6 process
Date: 21 Nov 92 07:12:46 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

monta@image.mit.edu (Peter Monta) writes:
: Are fixing by-products at all harmful to color dyes?  I think I
: understand the concern for black-and-white materials, since the silver
: image is susceptible to chemical attack, but unless the dyes have
: similar chemistry, they should be okay.
: 
: So might six minutes even be too long?  (I always follow the suggested
: wash time on the E-6 sheet, but I'd be curious about what bad things
: would happen if it were reduced to near-zero.)

There is a book called "Using Kodak E-6 Chemicals" that Kodak publishes.
They charge about $60, but if you are lucky, you can find it in a library.
(I was lucky!)  They show process charts, sample photos, etc. corresponding
to errors in processing.  The errors I remember include wrong time,
temperature, wrong color developer pH, contaminated developer solutions
(you'd be surprised how much damage adding 1 ml/liter of color developer
to the 1st developer can do!), under bleaching, under fixing, and ... oh
well, I forget the rest.  If you take a quick look through this book, you
may become a lot more conservative about your own processing tolerances!

I do not remember anything about over fixing.  I speculate that since
Kodak switched to the image preservation being done in the pre-bleach
(rather than in the nasty formaldehyde-rich stabilizer), the images 
may be much less likely than before to be harmed by later processing
steps.

Also, I wanted to point out (hopefully without hurt feelings) that those
who are using 3-step slide processing chemistry are not using E-6 chemistry.
Therefore, their comments on E-6 based on their experience with the 3-step
processes do not apply to real E-6.  Kodak does not even call their own
Slide Hobby Pac E-6 chemistry, or claim that it works as well.

After a few experiments with the Kodak Hobby Pac, I switched to Kodak E-6
chemistry.  Instead of worrying about what will happen if I do things
differently, I follow the directions as closely as I can.  I simply do
not have the kind of equipment (densitometers, color analyzers, Kodak and
Fuji control strips, etc.) to be able to find out what went wrong.  And
testing relative image stability is also a pain, and takes a long time!

So I settle for following the real E-6 process and getting great results.

(There is no way I'm going back to a formaldehyde-rich stabilizer --- yeech!)

Jay Ts
uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bob@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com (Bob Easton)
Subject: Re: Tamron 35-105 f2.8
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:43:55 GMT
Organization: the HP UK Response Centre
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Christian Bauer (bauer@informatik.uni-ulm.de) wrote:
: 
: All functions are providid by the MM connector for my Tamron 2,8/35-105
: So also TV an Programm (Normal High and Low) is possible.
: 
: If you need a connector perhaps you need a mail address in germany?
: e.g. Wrzburger Photoversand has this connector.
: 
: Thanks for the news Christian Bauer

Thanks to those who replied on this. I did get an MM mount on special
order from the Tamron importers here, but when I spoke to the technical
guy there, he said that there may be an issue with diaphragm bounce in
the program modes, so when the shutter actually opens, the aperture may
not be correctly set. I must admit that I've never seen a problem with
exposure that I could attribute to that, but I've tended not to use the
program and Tv modes much as a consequence. 

I've also noticed that the aperture readout on the LCD or in the
viewfinder is out compared with the actual setting on the lens (OK, only
half a stop, but ...)

Bob
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: mixed light, film, and filters
Date: 21 Nov 1992 12:55:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I will shortly post a case history on this issue from a job I did last
fall where we had three types of light sources...flourescent, quartz
halogen, and daylight...and I did it with flash and all lights on...
How? Stay tuned...

brian
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Resolution of Lens ???
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:21:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.164258.8766@cello.hpl.hp.com>, jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
> In article <Bxw69K.309@world.std.com> dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) writes:
> >When I have had lenses tested, they were used in projection - an
> >etched resolution test reticle was placed at the film plane, with a
> >collimated light source behind it (the reticle was a peice of
> >aluminized glass - it looked a whole lot like a mask from an IC shop).
> >That was projected onto a screen, with the distance varied to get it
> >all to fit. The person then examined the projected image to see what
> >the smallest clearly projected portion of the chart was. He could make
> >judgement about field flatness, chromatic aberration, flare, and
> >lens alignment in addition to resolution. No math or measurment was
> >required to come up with the resolution number - you just read off the
> >number next to the last clearly resolved pattern. 
> 
> I've got a question of the optics experts on the net.  When you use a
> projection reticle like this the light going through one piece of the
> reticle and a neighboring piece will be coherent.  (Well, coherent
> might not be the right word.)  So there will be interference effects.
> But light from different points of a subject coming the other way will
> not have any iterference effects.  How does this affect the results?
> 
> 
Well, the light isn't coherent so there will be no problem. I'm not sure
there would be a problem even if it were (but I'd have to think about it
a little more to be sure). The projection technique will of course give
different results than the usual "photographing a test pattern" technique
since the resolution made by the latter technique is also influenced by the
film resolution (and maybe by camera shake!). This is clearly seen by the fact
that it is almost impossible to get more than 100 lp/mm when testing any lens
using normal film (including K25, Velvia, or Tech Pan), wheras almost any
lens shows higher resolution than this in the film plane. I have a 500mm f5
that clearly resolves over 250 lp/mm in the film plane and yet I have never
measured better than 80 lp/mm on film (Velvia), despite using the bigest
tripod I can carry (Bogen 3051) and mirror lock-up.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
>
From: faust@faust.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: ? Burred backgrds w/ Nikon 105 or 85mm
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:00:53 GMT
Reply-To: faust@faust.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


--

As previously mentioned, the longer and faster the lens, the better it is 
for fashion work. Check just about any catalog on womens or mens clothing. 
Most are taken with at least a 200mm f2.8, 300mm 2.8, or sometimes even 
longer. It gives you great control over your background, gives you just enough
to show a setting without having it distracting, and keeps the sets small. For example, with a lens around 50mm, you would around a 10' to 15' area as the
background. With a 300mm 2.8, which is what I use regularly, you only need 
a background wall of around 6-8' in width. You can also use the longer lenses
to isolate the background enough to get rid of any distractions, so that you
could shoot on a busy street if you wanted, and only use a small portion of
the background to make it look like you are in a park setting.

If you are looking at the 85mm and 105mm to keep costs down, I would suggest
that you look at a 135mm 2.8 which are reasonably priced. or, for around $400
(at least for Nikon), the 180mm 2.8 Ed is a great lens for fashion work, and
much cheaper than a fast 300mm or longer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen R Faust                                         faust@bagels.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.                            faust@bagels.enet.dec.com
Networks and Communications                                   (508) 486-7433
Littleton, MA
============================================================================
From: b_kondalski@vssi.trw.com (Brian J. Kondalski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Lens Rental in Detroit Area
Date: 18 Nov 1992 13:08:48 -0500
Organization: TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: trwvssi.vssi.trw.com

Could anyone point me in the right direction as to where I can rent Nikon
lenses in the Detroit area.  I'm interested in their AF stuff, but would
also be interested in non-AF if that was all that was available.
Much thanks.
-- 
Brian J. Kondalski      b_kondalski@vssi.trw.com        "Listen to the pictures
TRW V.S.S.I.            Voice: (313) 781-7382            flow; across the room
4505 West 26 Mile Road  Fax: (313) 786-7702              into your mind they 
Washington, MI  48094   Views expressed here are MINE!   go."
From: wtyler@adobe.com (William Tyler)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Degrees Kelvin
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:55:52 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, CA

In article <By6zKw.1KA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes:

>What is the basis for defining different light temperatures by degrees
>Kelvin?

Physicists, in analyzing the light emission of heated matter use an
ideal source called a black body. For our purpose, you can approximate
a black body by the filament in a light bulb, or by the glowing gasses
of the Sun. Every black body emits light with a distribution of colors
that depends solely on its temperature. For example, if you stick a
piece of wire into a flame, you'll notice it start to glow red, then
yellow, then white. You can't get it hot enough to glow blue without
melting it first :-)

The temperature of a light source is simply the temperature of a black
body that would emit light with the same color distribution as the
source. Light bulbs are good approximations to black bodies.
Fluorescent tubes aren't, and that is why special wierd filtration is
needed to color balance photos taken under fluorescent lighting.

Bill



-- 
Bill Tyler      wtyler@adobe.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Advice on Canon 50 mm/f1.8 wanted
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:56:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.160234.23567@kth.se>, d90-nsc@nada.kth.se (Niclas Schopenhauer) writes:
> 
> 
>    I am considering buying a 50 mm lens for my Canon 100 (Elan in the US, I
> believe). However, since the only 50 mm lens by Canon on the market (not counting
> the 50/f1.0) belongs to the II series which, I am told, have bad optical quality,
> I'm considering buying a second-hand copy of the old 50 mm f/1.8.
> 

I have a 50 f1.8 that I picked out of 5-6 second hand a 3 new IIs. The early
unit is of better build quality opticaly, though that may no longer be the case.
The II is a bit faster focusing, but nothing like a USM. The *BIG* loss on the
II is no focus scale, and no IR focus index.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: djb@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.j.bryant)
Subject: Re: The Kodak disposable underwater camera
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Ohio
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:27:09 GMT

Regarding "The Kodak disposable underwater camera", sue-d@nwu.edu (SUE 
DAKIMOWICZ) wrote:
  > I'm going to the Virgin Islands in about 2 1/2 weeks and I want to go
  > snorkeling.  I was wondering if anyone has ever used the disposable cameras
  > that you can take underwater?  If so, how deep can you go?  What is the
  > quality of the pictures ( are they sharp or fuzzy?)  Are there any other
  > companies that make a similar camera, like Fuji maybe?

I've used the camera (Kodak calls them "The Weekender", I believe) a couple
of times and gotten pretty good results.  As I recall, the instructions say
the camera is usable down to a depth of 8' but that's likely a conservative
rating.  They're easy to use underwater -- the shutter release is fairly
clever for such an inexpensive arrangement, and the film advance knob is
no problem to operate while submerged.  The camera comes with a big blue
rubber band that you secure to the camera and use as a wrist strap.  It's
not easy to swim with the thing around your arm, but I discovered I could
tie it to my swimsuit drawstring when I needed to swim.  (As I *definitely*
needed to do to get back to the dive boat at Los Arcos in Puerto Vallarta.)

Picture quality is on par for disposable cameras.  I liked the idea that I
could use the camera above water, and took quite a few shots of the family
on the beach and in the boat.   (Be sure you wipe water droplets off the lens
before shooting out of water.)

I definitely got better results with The Weekender than I did with a 110-based
Minolta underwater instamatic that I used on a snorkelling trip on Maui.

The selling price for The Weekender seemed to vary widely.  They apparently 
list for around $12 each, but I found them on sale for $7-$9 at various
discount and even drug stores.

Obviously all the standard advice about underwater photography (lighting,
blue cast, etc.) applies.

	Enjoy (wish *I* were headed to the Virgin Islands...)
                                         UUCP: att!cbosgd!djb
        David Bryant                           att!cborion!djb
        AT&T Bell Laboratories       INTERNET: djb@cborion.cb.att.com
        Room 1B-256                            djb@cbosgd.att.com
        6200 East Broad Street          PHONE: (614) 860-4516
        Columbus, Ohio  43213             FAX: (614) 868-4302
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Info wanted on Nikon N90 vs. Minolta 9xi--what to buy...
From: krschimm@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu (Karl Schimmel)
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:24:30 CST
Organization: Wichita State University, Wichita, Ks

> |> 	This is actually going to be for my girlfriend, so I would like to
> |> get her the best one that I could.  She is graduating with a degree in
> |> photography in December, so this would make an excellent gift for her.  She
> |> has expressed interest in both models (and the Nikon F4--ouch!!!), and now
> |> it seems up to me to decide.....
>
> The reason that I recommend the Nikon is that she can start out with a small
> set of lenses, but if she gets an assignment where she needs something
> exotic, she can easily rent it, esp in New York.  Minolta is alot harder to
> rent, and in many cases you would have to buy it.  For example lets say
> she needs the 300/f2.8 to cover some sporting event, being just out of college
> she may not have the $4000.00 to pay for a new one if it can be found,
> but it may only cost here $100.00 to rent it for a weekend.
>
> Michael B.
its even cheeper to rent Nikon lenses in Wichita and Kansas City.
about $60 to $80 for a 300mm
AND if you become a Nikon Professional Card holder you can get free
loaners at larger events (oylmipics, political conventions and a number of
smaller more frequent things held in large citys (this goes for cannon
professionals to))

Karl R. Schimmel

The Wichita State University
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%krschimm at twsuvax   krschimm@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu  %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%