HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weiss@epx.cis.umn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: OM focussing screens
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:41:42 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

I am having difficulty getting an accurate focus with an OM2S and a
100-300mm f4 Tokina zoom.

Currently I am using a Beattie Intenscreen and also have the standard
#13 screen Olympus supplies.

Is the screen with a big microprism spot effective and quick to focus?
Will any nonstandard screen impact my spot metering accuracy?

Will Olympus ever market a serious autofocus camera?

Thanks,
__Jeffrey Weiss
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: View Camera Questions
Date: 17 Aug 1992 21:44:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <td6m1=a.badboy@netcom.com> badboy@netcom.com (Jay Keller) writes:
>
>Finally, can someone provide me the address of Zone VI please?

Zone VI was bought a while back by Calumet, a pro photo supplier from
Ohio.  They advertise in several photo magazines and will send you a
nice catalog/prices.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Powered ANTI STATIC BRUSHES (was Re: View finder cleaning)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 01:38:40 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

leonglaw@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Lawrence Leong) writes:

>In rec.photo, kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden) writes:

>|A while ago, I ordered one of those "Static Master" (I think that's the name)
>|brushes from Adorama.  I was suprised to see all the radiation warnings, etc.
>|You can't throw it out.  You have to return the radioactive piece of the
>|brush to the company for recycling.  Don't remove the protective grill,
>|because touching the radioactive material isn't good for you. ...

The device uses an isotope called Polonium-210.  it is a pure alpha emitter.
That means it is a very good ionizer and is harmless unless ingested.
Alphas will not penetrate the skin.  Po-210 has a short half-life and thus
must be replaced about annually.  You may dispose of the expired cartridge
in the garbage or you may return it to the company for disposal.  It is
not a good idea to touch the active element not because "it isn't good 
for you" but because the material is mounted in a very thin film in order
that the alphas may escape.  Some of the radioactive material could
rub off if you handle the surface roughly.  The major hazard is getting
some of this stuff on something that contacts undeveloped film.  
You'll get nice little alpha tracks on the film.

>I haven't seen these brushes, but this is (was) a common method of removing 
>static charges in the electronics industry.  Some years ago, 3M had a recall
>(something about someone illegally collecting the nuclear stuff in order to 
>make a home brew bomb, or at least that's what I was told).  Better heed the
>warnings, you don't want to glow in the dark and fog your paper/film :-).

The 3M recall was because a small portion of the ionizers developed 
leaks and shed a bit of the active material.  Nothing to do with bomb-making.
Po-210 is worthless in that context.

>|I originally though the brush would be better than "Canned Air" for getting
>|dust off of slides before making enlargements.  But I've found that the
>|"Canned Air" is more convenient and less radioactive, so I've pretty much only
>|used the brush a couple of times.

Less radioactive?  Whatever that means.  3M makes an ionizer that can be
mounted on an air nozzle (canned or otherwise) to ionize the flow.
A very complimentary setup.

Another use for the brushes is to mount an element over the record surface
on your turntable (remember that old technology? :-)  Very effectively
deionizes the vinyl.  Staticmaster makes a record-width brush from
which an element can be obtained (or a refill purchased.)

John "nuke in another career" De Armond

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
Subject: Re: Enlarger vs. Slide Projector
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:38:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.184136.5162@midway.uchicago.edu>, hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
> This is probably sound silly, but what does an enlarger do that a slide 
> projector can't.  Basically, what difference does it make whether one uses 
> a slide projector versus an enlarger.  They both project images don't they?
> Sheheryar

  It does sound silly.  Basically, what's the difference between a
truck and the space shuttle?  They both carry stuff, don't they?

  Here are some differences:

Slide projector 			Enlarger

lots of light falloff 			even coverage over the field
no aperture control			aperture control
no filters				provision for filters
very hot				cooler
throws lots of light			throws very little light
used for long projection distances	used for short projection distances
shows lots of pictures, quickly		shows one at a time
can't ensure that screen is parallel 	designed to keep "screen"
	to the slide			  parallel to slide/neg
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: markt@cup.hp.com (Mark Thompson)
Subject: Re: press cameras, Mamiya in particular
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:57:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

Check out the latest "Outdoor Photography" (sept. i think). 
An article discusses the Fuji and Mamiya rangefinders.

Mark
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Qualex complaints (was Fuji E-6 labs)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:16:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.133058.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.194314.15859@u.washington.edu>, watters@mendel.genetics.washington.edu (Mike Watters) writes:
> > Problems with mailers:
> > 	I can't speak for Fuji, but I sent in a Kodak slide mailer 3 weeks
> > ago and have yet to get my film back.
> > 
> > mike
> > 
> For Qualex's sake, i hope that they have a rep somewhere paying attention to
> this kind of complaint.  Qualex's ``improvement'' by going to bulk mailings
> ends up making some parts of the country VERY slow.  i waited 72 days for a
> roll of Kodachrome this spring, and then read their insert explaining the
> virtues of the new system included with my slides.  Since i was used to 14
> day turnaround with the old system, i stopped buying Kodalux mailers.  Now 

I seem to be the only person who gets good service from Kodalux! My last set
of slides (K200 & F50) went out to them last monday and was back in my mailbox
the next friday (4 days). It was also returned via 1st class mail and not
in a bulk mailing envelope (which Kodalux seemed to have been using for a
couple of months, and which seemed to slow things down a day or two). There
was also an insert with the film giving a new PO box number to mail mailers
to, which they said will speed things up even more. Note that I am not far
from the Fairlawn lab which all my slides go to, but even so Kodalux must have
turned the film around in a couple of days. I hear quite bad things about their
print processing, but for slides I have yet to have a problem, and the longest
wait to date has been about 10 days, with 4-5 days being the norm. I think I
heard somewhere that they have a toll free number (1-800-527 1718) which you
might try if you have problems with their service. I've never called, so I'm
not sure if the number is correct.

I have no connection with Kodalux or Qualex except as a satisfied  (and
therefore slightly suprised) customer.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 12 Aug 1992 22:05:40 CDT
From: Ron Vyhmeister <U53805@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: 500 MM lens for Canon EOS wanted

I'm looking for a 500 mm lens for Canon EOS camera.  If you know of any good
deals, please let me know.

Thanks.

Ron Vyhmeister
u53805@uicvm.cc.uic.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.models
From: boebert@sctc.com (Earl Boebert)
Subject: Re: looking for information on pinhole photography.
Keywords: pinhole, mineral oil
Organization: SCTC
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:36:50 GMT

Not pinhole per se, but in the late 1960s or early 1970s there was a 
series of articles in Model Railroader by a guy who constructed what
was in effect a scale view camera using Edmund Scientific lenses.  This
used a single sheet cut from a 35mm roll and gave scale perspective
to HO equipment.  The results were quite amazing.  Given the way 
Kalmbach Publishing mines and reprints all the old MR stuff it's
likely the articles are still available.

Earl
From: bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: A Question about 2X teleconverter
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:31:05 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <Bt47L3.42C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> amg8408@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Avijit  Moitra) writes:
>Can someone answer a few questions about 2X teleconverter.
>
>I have a Minolta Maxxum 7000 with Sigma 28-70/3.5-4.5 and 70-210/4.5-5.6
>lens and would like to buy a 2X teleconverter.  I wnat to know
>

	You can use any 2x converter that is designed for the Minolta
    'A' mount. I forget the name, but I believe that there are some
    available, and no, you don't need to use a Sigma.

	HOWEVER, I really thing that you would be better off with a
     400mm 5.6 rather than a 2x converter. (yes, I know it is lighter
     and inexpensive, BUT...) I say this because I assume you will
     use it with the 70-210. This means 420mm f/11, which in turn means
     a GOOD tripod, fast film, and manual focus (the 7000 just won't
     focus on much).


	The 7000 will be able to AF the 400 in a greater variety of 
     lighting conditions, and the 400 will likely be sharper than the
     70-210/2x combination.



								Bruce


  Bruce Burden            bruceb@mpd.tandem.com
From: daly@strawber.princeton.edu (John Daly)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: The quality of Nikon "E" lenses?
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:39:56 GMT
Organization: Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (CFD)
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <fred-mckenzie-210892083725@128.159.169.79>, fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug21.133300.1@cc.helsinki.fi>, mlindholm@cc.helsinki.fi
|> wrote:
|> >     Are the Nikon E-series lenses inferior in some way to the standard
|> >     Nikon manual focus lenses (e.g. the AI-series)?
|> 
|> The "word" is that the E-series lenses, which were produced in conjunction
|> with the Nikon EM, are optically the equal of similar Nikkor's.  They
|> apparently are made with more plastic/less metal, to be economical to
|> produce.
|> 
|> I doubt you will ever be disappointed with them for casual photography, and
|> you can save a little money.  I have the 36 to 72mm E-series zoom.  It is
|> probably as sharp as any zoom lens I have.  I'm quite impressed with it.

This is my understanding as well.  The optical quality is supposed to be
comparable, but the Nikkors are just built of sturdier stuff.  I've got
a 70-210 E-Series and am pleased with it, especially after having owned
a Minolta 80-200 Rokkor (sp?) which was not as optically crisp.

I must admit however that the skeptic in me is troubled.  A $200 70-210
E-series versus an $800 80-200 Nikkor.  That's a LOT to pay for metal!
From: tomrice@netcom.com (Tom R. Rice)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photography in low light?
Keywords: low light metering dark
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:18:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

I started out taking available-light shots in high school
when the fastest film available was Super-XX (ASA 100).  
My camera was an Argus C-3 with an f 3.5 lens.  One thing
you should do is practice hand-holding the camera at _slow_
shutter speeds (1/10 right down to 1 sec.), learning to steady
it against solid objects.  Unfortunately, modern SLR cameras just
are not the way to go.  Try this with a rangefinder camera that
doesn't do the thinking for you (I use a Leica CL and an old
Leica IId.  These cameras are also very quiet and small: unobtrusive!
Practice taking shots in clubs, restaurants, hotel lobbies, etc.
You'll be amazed at what you can do....

I usually shoot with 400-speed film (Fuji's my favorite) at f 2.0
and try to keep the shutter speed up a bit, but depth of field can
be a problem.  I've gotten better quality by pushing 400-speed film
to 1600 or 3200 rather than using the super high-speed films.

Practice, play and trash the flash... you'll love it!

trr

-- 
"Start off every day with a smile and get it over with."  --W.C.Fields
Tom R. Rice   WB6BYH                   Holler Observatory - 
tomrice@netcom.com                     Longitude:  121 d  30 m  20 s W 
CIS: 71160,1122                        Latitude:    37 d  25 m  10 s N
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photography in low light?
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:37:02 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
: I'm interested in trying out some shots in *really* low light--the kind
: of levels where the colour receptors of the human eye no longer work.
: 
: Indeed, is there any film that can handle this?  It doesn't have to be
: colour.  (I guess there's always IR flash photography...)

You might try Kodak T-max P3200.  This B&W film can be pushed as far as
EI 25,000.  You get lots of grain and lack of shadow detail.

Before you try this, I recommend that you make sure you know of a lab
where you can get it processed.

As far as exposure goes, you will have to figure that out for yourself!
If you are lucky, you will be able to set your exposure meter to, say,
EI 3200, and then try to find something in the room that is bright enough
to meter off of.  From that, you can adjust for the EI you are using, and
can guess how many stops darker than that your subject is.  You also may
need to add in a correction for the film's reciprocity failure.

P3200 is not a cheap film, and you will waste a lot of it getting a few
good shots.  I hope you are willing to spend some money ;-)

Jay Ts
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: alix@indetech.com (Alexandria North)
Subject: Re: SB-24 Speedlight -- Nikon Video and Hove Book
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:40:22 GMT

In article <PHR.92Aug11174459@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
>I read the SB24 manual when I got the flash, then lost the manual.
>But I find I can figure out the sb24's functions without it---it
>just takes a little experimentation.  In the days of mechanical
>cameras, nobody even looked at instructions.  The automatic ones
>are more complicated but you can still figure them out.

Well, I don't have much problem figuring out how each feature works, 
I was really looking for something that would help me get the most 
out of this speedlight. I tend to use it in very pedestrian ways, 
which is a shame considering the potential of the unit.


Alix
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Babies, babies, babies. Why did God make so many babies?
 But no, God didn't make them. Stupid people made them."
      -- Margaret Mitchell, Gone With The Wind
From: jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Airshows
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:13:06 GMT
Organization: ISC - Bunker Ramo, Spokane, WA

In article <1992Aug13.093038.331@eng.cam.ac.uk> sjm1@eng.cam.ac.uk (Stephen Mounsey) writes:
>Nope. Reflections from metallic surfaces are _not_ polarized. Reflections
>from non-metallic surfaces are, the extent depending on the reflection
>angle (maximum is at the "Brewster angle"). Hence why a polarizer is great
>for improving the clarity of ponds and rivers....

Don't forget that most 'bare metal' isn't, but is coated with a thin
film of wax...  Especially in automotive circles, which is why a polarizer
_does_ work even on bumpers.


-- 
+----------------+
! II      CCCCCC !  Jim Cathey
! II  SSSSCC     !  ISC-Bunker Ramo
! II      CC     !  TAF-C8;  Spokane, WA  99220
! IISSSS  CC     !  UUCP: uunet!isc-br!jimc (jimc@isc-br.isc-br.com)
! II      CCCCCC !  (509) 927-5757
+----------------+
			"PC's --- the junk bonds of the computer industry"
From: andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: polycarbonate camera bodies
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:16:45 GMT
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA

I for one am greatly relieved to have discovered that should Nikon, Canon,
Minolta, et al. all fold up shop because customers reject their shoddy 
plastic cameras that there are plenty of net.material.experts around that 
will be ready to jump in and do the job right.

Jeee-eeeze.

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    % Andy Cassino                                       %
    % Hewlett-Packard - Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Novice question on Elan fill-in flash
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:53:51 GMT
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <BtAo32.B9z@news.larc.nasa.gov> txn@sirius.larc.nasa.gov (Troung Nguyen) writes:
>
> I recently purchased an Elan and have shot 4 rolls of print film since.
> Most of the pictures I took were outdoor portraits, and I used 
> fill-in flash extensively.  The results were not very consistent, as 
> the main subjects in the pictures were sometimes either over or 
> under exposed (on the same roll of film).  I used +1/2 to +1 1/2
> stops of "flash exposure compensation" for fill-in depending on 
> background brightness(more for brighter background).  Would 
> someone please give me some advice on how to use fill-in flash 
> more effectively?

Why are you messing with the Flash exposure compensation, it will
automatically adjust the flash power for fill-in of bright subjects.

Also, were you using Slide or Print Negative film?

What was the distance of the subject you were attempting to fill-in
with flash?

> I understand that it was a novice  question, but the camera 
> manual and 4 other books I have are of no help.  
> While on the same subject, what is + or -
> of "flash exposure compensation" relative to ? (i.e. + for 
> longer duration? How much longer?)

+1 gives you one stop more of flash power (length/duration is reletive,
and changes from subject to subject.

-1 gives you one stop less of flash power.

> I used the built-in flash if it matters.  Thank you.

Remember that the built in flash is only going to help you out with subjects
no further away then about 10 feet (depending on your lens, this is based on
f/4, smaller apertures (larger numbers) will give you even less range).

Your under exposed subjects could have been out of the flashes coupling
range, and your over exposed subjects could be the resul of you adjusting
the flash exposure compensation too high.

Also, if you used print film negatives, your printer could have messed up.
Its much better to test such things with slide film first.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Racial remarks (was: Cambridge)
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:02:35 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Originator: asanders@sparta

| As a matter of fact, they are Jewish...

		-Gustavo Salas

There are scum-bags as well as honorable people in every culture.
To deliberately point out the nationality or religion of a
particular scum-bag is, in my opinion, racially motivated and
should have no place in civilized discussion.

				-Alan
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Sigma 600mm f/8 Reflex on AF cameras?
Distribution: na
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:31:07 GMT

In <2525@tau-ceti.isc-br.com> jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey) writes:

>In article <86238@netnews.upenn.edu> liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang) writes:
>>>> Has anyone used Sigma's 600mm reflex lens with an AF camera?
>>>> What limitations are there in addition to the fixed aperature and
>>>> manual focus?  Does the camera's AF sensor still work? In other words,
>>>> does that 'in focus' indicator light up when the picture is in focus?

>I use one occasionally.  It seems nicely built, but I've never been all
>that happy with it.  It is awfully slow at f/8, and the contrast seems
>to be 'off' a little.  Playing 'spot the 600' with K25 slides I've taken 
>isn't even fun, it's too easy.  It is unclear to me whether or not this
>is inherent to a mirror lens, whether it's just atmospheric haze and
>other similar effects, or whether the Sigma's just not that hot.  I
>don't have the Canon 600mm f/4 to compare it against!

I don't know about contrast, but mirror lenses are infamous for having
"doughnut-shaped highlights" (instead of fuzzy blobs) for out-of-focus
points.  So, that should be a dead giveaway.

>Anyway, here's what I remember: There are _no_ electrical contacts, and
>you have to use the Av f/1 setting (or manual).  The metering works fine
>then.  The AF sensor does work but the lens is so fiddly to focus (being
>such a long length) that you get better results just by looking, though
>this isn't easy because it's f/8.  A split focusing screen helps on
>mine, but all you poor Rebel/10s/Elan saps have to do without (thanks
>bunches, Canon). 

What is the MF process like at f/8?  I've read that the focusing aid
"may not be useful at apertures smaller than f/5.6" (just like AF).
Is it that the two halves of the split suddenly become effective when
the image is "almost" in focus?  How is it less fiddly than the AF light?

>Some day I'll probably replace my two Sigma lenses (400 5/6 APO & f/8
>mirror) with the Canon 300 f/4 and the two teleconverters.  Not for
>a while though.

It's a shame Canon's 2x teleconverter doesn't work with your 80-200/f2.8L!
(I don't know how good it is, but there was a review of TC's in "Practical
Photography", and the Tamron TC really degraded lens performance.)

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mayr@risc.uni-linz.ac.at (Herwig Mayr)
Subject: Re: Database of lens information? -- Databases on Photography
Organization: RISC, J.K. University of Linz, Austria
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:06:00 GMT

Are there any databases, archives, ... on photography
(camera bodies, lenses, films, ...) available via internet
or bitnet?

Is there any `guide to photography' available via net
(also a `list of photographing hints' would be nice.

BTW, I really like the idea of posting one's best shots to
a newsgroup. For me (not an absolute beginner, but still not
much more than that), getting this pictures with maybe some comments
would be a great idea. Maybe commenting and analyzing the pictures
could be done by some voluntaring readers of rec.photo?

Herwig.