HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dwing@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu (Dan Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Disc Cameras
Date: 31 Dec 92 14:10:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.181543.23429@vestek.com>, don@vestek.com (Don Labutay) 
writes:

> Whatever happened to the disc cameras that kodak first introduced a few
> years ago.  I don't see them being sold anymore.  I had one of their first
> models and the picture quality wasn't that good. But, I was thinking a 
> few years more, they would have improved it, maybe a 35mm disc with autofocus.
> But it looks like they didn't. What happened?

The negatives were, if I recall, about the same size as the old 110's.  Print 
quality was very poor, and the point-and-shoot 35mm's were just starting to
become popular at about the same time.

The disk cameras were also taller (up and down) than a normal camera (weren't
they?).

-Dan Wing, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu or wing_d@ucolmcc.bitnet (DGW11)
 Systems Administrator, University Hospital, Denver (DGW11)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:34:05 -0500 
From: Christophe Dumay <cd2t+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: 24mm Nikkor ? Sigma ?

I am planning to buy a wide angle lense (for a Nikon camera)
and I have the following possibilities :

- 24 mm/ 2.8 Nikkor (AF) for about 285 $

- 24 mm/ 2.8 Sigma for 120 $ (AF) or 75 $ (MF) !

- 20-35/ 3.5-4.5 Sigma for 320 $

- 21-35/ 3.5-4.5 Tokina for 230 $

The two zooms performed well in the Pop Photo tests but I am worried
about the size of the filters (77 and 72 mm).

Therefore I am wishing to get informations regarding the two fixed-focal lenses
quoted above. 
I would like to know the size, weight, filter size as well as the aperture 
stops of these lenses.

The Sigma lense is very cheap. Any opinion concerning the quality of
this lense (and if possible compared the Nikon's) would be very welcome.

(I had a 28mm Sigma lense wich was good except for close focusing :
strong distortion. What about the 24 mm ?).


If you are willing to answer, please E-mail me at cd2t+@andrew.cmu.edu

Thank you in advance,  Christophe DUMAY.
From: lc0v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Luis Abdon Cifuentes)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Which lens: EF 28-105 or 35-105?
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:26:30 GMT
Organization: Doctoral student, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Hi,
 after the great Nikon vs. Canon debate, I am a converted to Canon!
(sorry Nikon fans). I would like to upgrade my 8008 to an A2. Now the
question is which lens to get with it.
 
I am looking for a good "all purpose" zoom lens. 
Is the new 28-105 a good lens? How does it compares to the 35-105?
The extension to 28mm is not crucial, I would probably use more the
105mm end of the range.  I wouldn't want to give up too much sharpness
for an incrased range.

I have heard that the 28-70 was very good, but is a little in the short
side. What about the 28-80?

So, EOS experts out there, which lens has better optical qualities?
Thanks in advance.

Luis
From: mat@alice.att.com (Mathew Pirz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Need Pointers: Flash & Telextender
Keywords: Flash, FAQ, Ricoh, Telextender, Help
Date: 28 Dec 92 06:27:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24493
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ


My current setup is the following:
Ricoh KR30sp body
28-100mm zoom
70-210mm zoom

This is what I would like and what I know about:
1. A 2X Telextender. I've been shown mostly Tamron equipment.
Priced around $50-$60 (US). One store told me it would work
in program mode, another said it would not.

I would appreciate any comments on the price/equipment mentioned,
as well as things which I should look for. I have been told that
resolution suffers with telextenders, but how bad is it really?
I'm not into pro work, so I don't need to worry about having
perfect prints, but am I going to look at the results and
say "Uck!" ?

2. A flash. I've been shown a number of brands. Prices ranged
from $50-70 for fixed head models, and $60-90+ for tilt head types.

I'll be using this only so that I can get good indoor shots with
say, film speeds of 100-400. The types of shots you get with those
cheap little point and shoot cameras with the built in flash.
(Yes, I own one of these, and up till now I've been frustrated because
I NEVER have enough light indoors to use my good camera and have to
use this little piece of...  Anyway..)

I'm not sure whether to get a fixed or adjustible head. I may want more
flexibility down the road, so if an adjustable head would give it
to me, then I'd be willing to pay more for it now. Pointers here
would be greatly appreciated. I also need to know what brands are
good and what I should expect to pay (the price range seemed huge...).



This may be a FAQ, or maybe not. If it is please reply via e-mail.

Thanks much,
Mat Pirz
-- 
...wherever!research!alice!mat.....
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Tamron 90/2.5 macro (was Re: Longish macro lens for EOS. (was Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?))
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:37:25 GMT
	<1992Dec28.161527.12775@eua.ericsson.se> <BzzBo5.3r9@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
	<1992Dec29.122948.26657@eua.ericsson.se>
	<PD.92Dec30014256@horus.sics.se> <TJWU.92Dec29234819@marinara.mit.edu>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <TJWU.92Dec29234819@marinara.mit.edu> tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu) writes:

>Are you sure Tamron makes the 90mm f/2.5 macro with an EOS mount?
>Last time I checked, the only such Tamron lens was the new 28-200mm.

No, I'm not sure. Sorry, I should have checked before posting.
Let me rephrase my original statement: If the Tamron 90/2.5 macro
exists in a mount for your camera, go buy it! :-)

Seriously, though, it performed better than any other macro lens around
100mm in a test recently, and if it doesn't already exist in an EOS
mount Tamron should hurry up.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rudi@netcom.com (Rudolf Usselmann)
Subject: Developing color negatives & prints
Keywords:  Developing color negatives & prints
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:32:03 GMT



I followed the thread about different photo labs a while back, and have
a follow up comment and question:

I brought 3 rolls of color film (Ektar 100 & Kodak Gold 200) to 
"Imagery Group" in Fremont, CA. They send them out to Kodalux.
Almost ALL negatives came out underexposed and all the prints
where more or less useless. I was very disappointed since this
is the first time I got such a bad result. A friend told me they
should have adjusted their processing and still produce something
more reasonable. Here's my Question:
Which photolab in the bay area will do a negative by negative
evaluation when developing negatives & producing prints ?
Or do all of them do it automaticly and I just got bad luck ?
What should I look out for when selecting a photo lab ?
I really doubt that it was my fault that the negatives came out
that bad (two or four per roll may be - but not all 3 rolls !).

Thanks for all pointers !

rudi
rudi@netcom.com
home: (510) 745-7834
work: (415) 321-8692
From: auyeung@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Tak [UlTech] AuYeung)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Which lenses report focusing distance electronically?
Date: 29 Dec 92 09:28:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of California, Davis

In article <1992Dec28.205950.16887@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@bellcore.com (Jason Chen) writes:
>
>Huh? If not how does TTL flash work?
>
>Jason Chen

I suspect some TTL mechanisms read from the film-plane to "see" the
actual light reflected (otherwise, bounced light would be quite
difficult to compute).

--Tak
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 17:30:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.004328.19626@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>In <BzssK3.Kp6@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec24.205338.11007@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>>>In <1992Dec23.194028.18483@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> I wrote:
>Of *course* you put the feature of interest where the split is, and
>then recompose.  That's what you do with the AF sensor too.  The most
>common area of the face suggested for AFing is the eye, since it has
>both light and dark regions.  However, being a small region, may AFers
>like to tweak the focus manually (especially easy with USM lenses)
>since AF may decide that the person's glasses are more interesting than
>the person's eye.

    You and the other guy who posted something about needing focusing
aid because Nikon user can use MF lens obviousely never owned a
fast lens and used it for a portrait type tight head shot with the lens
wide open.  The split screen doesn't work when you try to use it one
someone's eye.  With a horizontal split screen, you need somthing
vertical to split, there isn't anything vertical in a person's eyes.
If you are used to using zoom, you don't have to worry about things
like critical focuse because the pin hole zoom will give you plenty
of DOF so if your focusing is close, that's plenty good enough.  With
a 85mm wide open at 1.2 and up close, split screen and microprism
just doesn't give you an accurate enough focus.  On the other hand,
maybe it's just me and my eyeballs.

-Anthony
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: kjf388@tijc02.uucp (Ken Fisher          )
Subject: 8008s remote shutter contacts
Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 15:20:49 GMT

I can't find any specific information regarding the remote shutter
contacts in the operators manual for a new 8008s.  

I had assumed it was just a simple contact closure, but a reference in a
magazine to having to use a different resistor value when switching from an
8008 to an 8008s and using custom electronics to drive the remote shutter
contacts, leads me to believe otherwise.  

At this point I am guessing, but perhaps you use a certain value of
resistance across the contacts to simulate lightly pressing the shutter
release button to turn on the metering circuitry, and then a dead short
across the contacts to fire the shutter.  

Anybody familiar with this or where technical specifications beyond
those found in the simple owners manual can be had? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Fisher                          | kjf388%tijc02@uunet.uu.net
Siemens Industrial Automation, Inc. | UUCP: uunet!tijc02!kjf388
Johnson City, Tn. 37605             | Phone: 615-461-2125
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale,rec.antiques
From: ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (Eric Chen)
Subject: 3 Slide Projectors Give Away or Sale (>$20)
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson SC
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:18:09 GMT

I have three antique slide projectors which are older than 20 years.
I would like to give them away or sell them to the highest bidder.

1. Airequipt 129 w/4" luminal lens, w/4 carousels (each carousel hold
	100 slides), manual control, excellent working condition.
		Sell $40 OBO + Shipping.

2. Argus 200 w/4" f:3.5 Argus lenses, one roller tray (hold two slides
	only, the simplest tray), manual control, excellent working
	condition.        Sell $20 OBO + Shipping.

3. Bell & Howell Robomatic 750 w/lens, remote controler, spare bulb.
	Since I can not find the tray for this one and internal
	magnify lenses have been removed.  I will consider this one
	for parts only.
			SELL FOR $0.00 OBO + Shipping.

If you are going to bid higher than the price I am asking.  You are
encourged to do so and you will get the higher possibility to get the 
projector.

#1 and #2 projectors are ready to play, every parts in excellent
condition.  No adjustments are necessary for them.  All the lenses
listed above do not have fungi grown inside, optically perfect.
#1 and #2 use 500W light bulb, #3 use 750W light bulb. 
(not necessary to use the above light bulbs; you may replace your
own low waltage bulb).

Please reply to this account.

Eric
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bob@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com (Bob Easton)
Subject: Re: EOS 10s vs Elan
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:25:39 GMT
Organization: the HP UK Response Centre
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Stevan Vidic (stevan@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu) wrote:
: 
: Hmmmmm...  The original message asked for a comparison of 10S and Elan.  Why
: you chose to ignore the USA nomenclature in your reply is beyond me.  Now, I
: guess that 10 is 10S and 100 is Elan.  I don't have a clue what 5 might be
: (honestly).
: 

I guess we Europeans think in our numbers just like you folks think in
yours. Perhaps its about time the manufacturers took note of the global
market?

The EOS 5 is the new one with eye-controlled focussing (EOS 2 in the US?)

Bob
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: briang@atlastele.com (Brian Godfrey)
Subject: Re: Swelling of wet paper
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:23:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.002911.18624@atlastele.com> briang@atlastele.com (Brian Godfrey) writes:
   [Hey! That's me!]
>   It seems to me that if one were interested in maximizing sharpness of the
>   final print, one would print on wet, swelled up paper.  I might try that,
>   just for kicks, and see what happens.  I presume I will see an increase
>   in contrast as well as sharpness.  Blacker blacks, etc.  (Like when you
>   inflate a balloon and write on it, then deflate it.  The writing gets
>   real contrasty and black.)  I have a wonderful negative which needs a
>   real hard paper to print well.  I think I might try it with this method.

>   Has anyone tried anything like this and can save me some work if it's a
>   stupid idea?  :-)

   Well I thought about it some more and decided it was a waste of time.  If
   the paper is swelled over-size, then I have to enlarge the image more to
   get it on the paper, which enlarges any grain and "unsharpness" in the
   image.  Then when the paper dries and shrinks to normal size, the image
   shrinks to normal size, and the imperfections shrink to normal size.  So
   nothing is gained.  If it were really so easy to increase sharpness, it 
   would already be routine in most darkrooms. :-)

-- 
--Brian M. Godfrey
  atlastele.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: artc@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Art)
Subject: Is SB-25 that much better than SB-24??
Organization: MMC
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:32:34 GMT


Hello:

	I have finally decided to stay with Nikon equip....
	However, I can't decide if I should go with SB-24,
	or the "NEW" SB-25???
	please post your opinions here...

	thanks
	Art
From: dwing@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu (Dan Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Elan flash question (rookie)
Date: 28 Dec 92 17:42:38 GMT

I recently purcahsed a Canon Elan with the 28-80 lens, and have a few 
questions.  I learned all my photography (not much, mind you) using a 
fully-manual 35mm camera that was purchased in the 60's....

So...  I'd like to use the Elan's built-in flash, at night (it will be 
dark, so a flash will be necessary), but would like a smaller aperture
than what the camera selects.  On a fully manual camera, I'd decrease the 
aperture (use a bigger number) and take a longer exposure.

No problem, thought I, I'll just move it out of P (fully automatic program)
to aperture priority, set the aperture, and the camera will tell me it needed
to use 1/15 or 1/30 of a second to properly expose the scene with the
flash.  But instead it decides I'm trying to properly expose the background 
whilst using the flash, and tells me it'll expose for 1.5 seconds at f5.6
or so.

My thought then was that using the flash without adjusting the flash output 
might work, or it might not -- it all depends on what the camera decides is
the necessary flash output (duration) and how much I can extend the duration.

So my question is:  How do I get a smaller aperture with more DOF using my
flash?  Or is what I am doing completely unnecessary or unexpected?

-Dan Wing, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu or wing_d@ucolmcc.bitnet (DGW11)
 Systems Administrator, University Hospital, Denver (DGW11)
From: freudent@jan.ultra.nyu.edu (Eric Freudenthal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Olympus IS-3 DLX - Information
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:30:31
Organization: /a/users/freudent/.organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: jan.ultra.nyu.edu
In-reply-to: thomas@bnr.ca's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:09:26 GMT

It seems to be essentially equivalent to the IS1 except
	IS3 focuses and zooms MUCH faster
	Focal lengths: IS1=35..135  IS3=35-180
	IS3 has more program modes

I like and have used both cameras...and am considering purchasing the
IS3...but it is presently overpriced.  Maybe after xmas....
--
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
				Eric Freudenthal
				NYU Ultracompter Lab
				715 Broadway, 10th floor
				New York, NY  10003
				
				Phone:(212) 998-3345 work
				      (718) 789-4486 home
				Email:freudent@lab.ultra.nyu.edu
From: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Is SB-25 that much better than SB-24??
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:58:56 GMT
Reply-To: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

I currently own the sb24 with my 8008s-based system.  If I were buying
a new flash today, I would definitely go for the SB-25.  It is more
powerful than the 24.  It has a built-in bounce card.  It has a diffuser
that enables it to cover a 20mm lens.  It also has features to interface
with the latest camera body, the N90.  I t does everything the 24 does.

I do not plan to trade in my SB-24.  But when I buy a second flash
( I have two camera bodies), it will most likely be the 25.

   /|/| /||)|/  /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~   |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
  / | |/ ||\|\  \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_|  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Panaromic photo CD images?
From: CUNY/Spartacus <I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 26 Dec 1992 20:19:15 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Supersedes: <92361.195135I18BC@CUNYVM.BITNET>

In article <92361.175500STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>, STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Stan Horwitz)
says:
>
>This past summer, my housemate bought a throw away panaromic 35mm camera.  The
>results were interesting, but just like other throw away cameras, it came with
>poor quality grainy film.
>
>In any  event, I  was wondering if  one of these  little throw  away panaromic
>cameras could be put  onto a Photo CD like conventional  35mm images.  Is this
>possible?  I suspect it  is possible, but only by breaking  up the long images
>into manageable  sizes.  This would, of  course, sort of defeat  the panaromic
>effect of the pictures.

Hmm, I believe Pop Photo Mag discussed how those panoramic images are
made on the negative.  They basically mask off a portion of the top
and bottom edge of a standard 35x24mm negative image.   At least that
is how its done with the panorama kit for maxxum cameras.  Since the
frame is still 35mm wide I'm sure they can fit it in the CD with spare
room.
     normal 35mm shot                          panoramic shot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []
eg:| +---------------+   +----------------+   ................. <- masked
w  2 |               |   |----------------|   +---------------+    by camera
i  4 |               |   |                |   |               |
d  m |  image        |-> |                |-> |  image        |
e  m |               |   |----------------|   +---------------+
   | +---------------+   +----------------+   ................. <- masked
 []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  []  [] by camera
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     |------35mm-----|   |------35mm------|    |-------35mm----|
            wide                wide                   wide
-------
                                                       .  .  .  .   .  . . .
------------------------------+ All The Best in '93,. .  .  . .  *  . . .   .
Reply To:                     | Merry Christmas!      . . .  .  /o . . .  . .
     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    | Edward Galarza,          .  .  / o   .   .
     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      | Brooklyn College Of The     . /o  o    .   .
     IRC: Spartacus           | City University Of New York  /o  o o    .  .
------------------------------+ "Que viva el OS/2!"   __________| |__________
                                                      #######################
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:31:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.205338.11007@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>In <1992Dec23.194028.18483@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> I wrote:
>3.3) Screens?
>What you want is a *real* focusing screen with a split prism or
>microprism focusing aid.  Can a camera really be "pro" or even
>"semi-pro" without decent screens?

   Why do you want a split or microprism screen?  First off, with
AF, you don't need focusing aid.  Second, if you ever use a fast
lens, you'll know that split screen or microprism is useless.  A fast
lens has such small DOF that unless you are lucky, there won't be
enough feature for the split screen to split or microprism to merge
(for example, a tight head shot with a 1.2 lens that has a DOF of about
1/4", where are you going to find vertical feature on someone's face
to split the split screen?  If you focus on say the person's arm to
use the split screen, her face won't be in focus anymore.)  One of the
few things that I like about AF cameras (obviousely, I don't use one)
is that they all seems to have bright plain focusing screen.  I
absolutely hate it whenever someone hand me their camera with that
pin hole zoom and all you see is that black blob in the middle of the
focusing screen.

-Anthony
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rslugg@med.unc.edu (Robert Slugg)
Subject: photo books for sale
Originator: rslugg@pelham
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:30:19 GMT

I am selling a number of books on nude/erotic photography from my
collection.  Please email for list and state that you are over 18.

Bob

Newsgroups: rec.photo