HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: MF23 multi-back for F4s
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:08:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Just got back the 1st roll of film using the MF23 printing.

Pretty good.  Initially I had some trouble seeing where they
imprint the shutter speed/aperture setting outside the frame.  I thought
"oh no, it is not working".  But then upon closer examination I found
them between frames, quite small but still big enough to read with
bear eyes.  A light-table/magnifier combo make it easier, but then how
often do we check the shutter-speed/aperture setting.

In fact the printing (between frames) is so small that they could
probably fit 30 characters across the film.  I like it because it does
not distract one from the photo image (i.e. not big and obnoxious). 

The bracketing works fine too (for $450, it better), except for the price
of the film.  At the minimum setting, it takes 3 frames per shot, meaning
a 36-shot roll only produce 12, which results in film-change 3 times as 
often. 

For an amatuer who is asked to do a pro job (like wedding, presentation
photos, etc), I would use the bracketing for insurance.  Also like
once-in-the-lifetime trips like oversea tour, or Grand Canyon (going all
the way down, not just hanging around the top), I would think it would
be prudent to use it.

In conclusion, if you do a lot of photo (and use one-hour non-pro lab),
the $450 is worth the price.  Of course there is the 3x-film/processing
price to consider, but it is probably much cheaper than going to a 
pro lab for enlargement.  

Please correct me if I am wrong.
From: rjw@nsa.hp.com (Richard Webber)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: ENLARGING 35mm/Med.format/other
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:58:47 GMT
	<1992Jul28.222507.303@walter.bellcore.com>
	<1992Jul29.134934.10995@linus.mitre.org>
	<1992Jul29.154945.22155@walter.bellcore.com>
Organization: Networked Systems Architecture, Hewlett-Packard Company

In article <1992Jul29.154945.22155@walter.bellcore.com> hsong@ardour.bellcore.com writes:

   BTW, does a glass 4x5 carrier require multi-coated glass material to be
   fair?   We are concerned about coating in the filter glasses in front of 
   our lenses.  I think that the glass 4x5 carrier should also be multi-
   coated to maintain purist's standard, shouldn't it?

I think that multicoating on lenses is mostly to reduce flare.  Flare
is not a problem on the glass carriers (correct me if I'm wrong - not
that I need to ask!).  On the other hand a feature called "Newton's
Rings" is a problem.  It is an effect caused when two *almost* flat
surfaces of glass meet - subtle changes in the spacing cause
interference patterns in the shape of rings.  Very pretty, but not
superimposed on your favourite landscape!  There is a special "Anti
Newton" glass that they make for these carriers.  I have no idea how
it works.  Glass carriers are a mixed blessing - there are a lot more
surfaces to clean.

   With all things considered, I wish I had my own enlarger with a slightly
   longer-focal-length enlarging lens and a 6x9 carrier.   I am going to 
   send my negs to Fuji Anaheim Color Laboratory, and let them do justice 
   on those 6x9 sizes, and I will find out how well they balance the colors
   in addition to the size problem.

	   Hugh

A Beseler 23 couvers 6x9.  They aren't too much used.  I have an Omega D2, it
does up to 4x5" - you could try looking for one of those with a colour head.

Richard
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lens shading (Re: Schneider and Rodenstock lenses)
Keywords: lens quality
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:20:13 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Geoff Allen writes:

>Doesn't anybody wear *hats* any more?  They work quite nicely for
>shading that ol' lens.

But, Geoff, most hats that I see are too large to fit a lens.  :-)

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: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:52:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul23.195212.7864
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <3116@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.215223.29824@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
>>| With the exception of the F4 and EOS1, using an AF/AE camera in
>>| maunual mode is in general a pain.  I don't have much experience 
>>| with the AF stuff, but using an AE Canon A1 in manual is a royal pain.
>>
>>The writer starts out by making a sweeping generalization, then
>>admits he has little or no experience with the equipment he is
>>criticizing. He then finishes by comparing modern autofocus
>>cameras to a ten-year old design--an irrelevant comparison.
>
>	I am stating the fact that I don't use enough AF to critize
>it, but I have use enough AE to know that I don't like them.
>Would you rather I make a sweeping statement saying both AF and
>AE suck?

Maybe you should clarify.  In what way do you think AF/AE cameras suck?

>>| I am sure there is a way to overide the auto DX, after about a 
>>| sequence of 15 button pushes and knob twisting.
>>
>>This is nonsense. This kind of information is worse than useless,
>>since it confuses inexperienced readers who genuinely want to know
>>what benefits modern camera technology can and can't provide.
>
>	So, how about privide me with a step by step on how you would
>overide the AE and auto-DX in your favorite AF/AE camera.

Thats an easy enough question.  On my 7xi, I just press the ISO button,
and then rotate the front dial to whatever ISO rating I want.

On the Cannon EOS Elan, I just rotate the function dial to ISO, and then
rotate the switch to whatever ISO rating I want.

These are hardly 15 step processes.

>The reason
>I bought up the auto-DX is because a friend of mine is taking
>a photography class and they needed some tungsten balanced film,
>since I just happen to have a 100' roll, I figure I can sell her and
>her classmates some film for a low low price and maybe I can reclaim
>some space in my fridge.  The bottom line is, they can't use bulk
>loaded film because not a single one of them know how to overide
>their camera.

Perhaps that is why they are in a photo class, to learn how to do such
things.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: ENLARGING 35mm/Med.format/other
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:33:08 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 7152@stsci.edu, levay@stsci.edu (Zoltan Levay) writes:
>Nevertheless, I would like to dispell the currently fashionable notion
>that it is *impossible* to make enlargements from small-format images.
>As evidence, I suggest the photographs and writings of one Galen
>Rowell, who uses exclusively 35mm (as far as I know).  I have seen
>enlargements of Rowell's pictures that were at least 20x30 inches (I
>know that's not big by some standards) that I would consider much
>better than acceptable.  Film format *by itself* is not the only factor
>in achieving acceptable prints.

	Juan Galen Rowell... isn't that the guy who does the 
	designer camera bags? :-) In any event, enlargements from
	35mm are often made using internegatives of a size larger
	than 35mm... as the muscle car afficionadoes say, there's
	no substitute for cubic (or in this case, square) inches.

		Dave

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow)
Subject: Re: Spot meters
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:23:49 GMT


Regarding the size of the Pentax *Digital* spotmeter, can someone
post the approximate dimensions and weight? Thanks.
-- 
Michael Volow, Psychiatry, Durham VA Med Center, Durham NC 27712
919 286 0411 Ext 6933               mvolo@uncecs.edu
From: drb@praxis.co.uk (David Brownbridge)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: INFO SOUGHT: Nikon-compatible Kiev 19
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:17:58 GMT
Organization: Praxis, Bath, U.K.

Has anyone seen or used or got any further information about this beast
reported in British Journal of Photography, 23 July (no 6881) page 4:

	"... Russian manufactured Kiev 19 camera, which will be making its
	 debut at Cologne photokina in September.

	 The 35mm manual camera is of all-metal construction with shutter
	 speeds from 1/2 to 1/500s, has built-in TTL meter and TAKES NIKON
	 LENSES" [emphasis added]

The news item mentions a potential importer to the UK and selling price of 100
UK pounds for  body plus 50mm f/2 lens.   For comparison this is about same as
the the shop  price for a secondhand (auto-only)  Nikon  EM body with series E
50mm lens.  New camera to be "available for Christmas".

David Brownbridge

... Or is it just a CIA plot to destabilise the Japanese photo-industry :-)
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: print protection?
Date: 22 Jul 92 07:18:39 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <+rqx5cf@rpi.edu>, changj@nova.cs.rpi.edu (John Chang) writes:

> Does anyone know of anything that would protect prints (primarily from 
> scratches), preferrably in something easily applicable like a spray?
> As many people know, Cibachrome is very easily scratched (and dirtied),
> and I'm tired of having it scratched up just from carrying it with
> other prints.  I've seen a spray for retouching photos and one for
> generic art/photo, but haven't seen one specifically for scratches.  
> Does such things exist?

I don't know, but you may want to investigate Tetenal's Protectan spray.

> Also, when I make prints with Cibachrome, it seems to always come out
> with magenta cast.  This is with magenta filter reduced 10-15 from
> what's suggested on the paper package.  I can keep reducing the filter,
> but was wondering if this is a sign of my doing something wrong.  
> Thanks for any replies.

You're not doing anything wrong. The suggestion on the paper package is
artificial and only shows how much this paper batch differs from some kind
of generic reference. The light from your enlarger lamp may differ a lot
from this generic difference. When I did a lot of Ciba's a few years
ago, I often had to add as much as 60CC yellow.



-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: New Nikon Equipments.  Nikinos RS & SB-104
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:50:55 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

>
>How much did F2 cost?  I remember when F3 just came out, I could get it
>for US$600.  Now we have paid somewhere between $1,500 and $2,000  for
>the F4s, I thought that will be the highest it will go (let's keep Leica
>out for the time being).
>

	In 1977, I paid, discounted from New York, for a new
	F2 Photomic (DP2), $335 chrome, $350 black.

	You can still by an F3 HP new for around $799 (remember,
	the HP finder cost about $100 more than the regular
	prism finder, and now you can't buy the regular prism
	finder, but still pay the premium in exchange for a
	smaller image magnification in the finder- a net loss
	as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not an eyeglass wearer).

	The story is that Nikon was shocked when as many people
	bought the F4 as have done so, since the F4 was deliberately
	priced at a premium level.

		Dave
From: watters@darwin.genetics.washington.edu (Mike Watters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 -- lenses w/shutters
Date: 26 Jul 92 07:29:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul26.072941.7872
Organization: University of Washington

In article <1992Jul25.164006.922@msus1.msus.edu> Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John) writes:
>Has anyone found lenses for the Pentax 67 with
>integral shutter (and perhaps X synch?)
>
>BTW -- now making adaptors for 67 to attach
>good, flat-field enlarging lenses w bellows.
>any other market for these or am i reinventing
>the wheel?

If the lenses have an integral shutter...  Why would they have an X sync
since leaf shutters sync at any speed?

mike

--
Mike
watters@genetics.washington.edu
Dept of Genetics, Univ of Washington  Seattle
(d) 206-543-1934   (e) 206-361-1156 
From: kinch@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kinch Malapitan)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:41:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Imported film
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: rec.photo

  I ordered about 15 rolls of the Ektachrome 100 (135-36) when I went to Asia
  and Europe last year from one of those mail order places in Pop. Photography.
  Maybe I got lucky - the ones I got were from England & I think the expiration
  date is 1993 - my slides turned out fine. I didn't notice any degradation at
  all. However, I'm not a professional photographer so if you're really into
  detail (specs and all), ignore this reply. I take slides mostly of landscape,
  events, etc., blow them up to 8x10 or 11x16 (since I usually use Ektachrome 64
  except for this trip I took) or show the slides to friends. 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: monson@manitee.ECE.ORST.EDU (Tyrus Monson)
Subject: Re: print protection?
Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:54:16 GMT

In article <+rqx5cf@rpi.edu> changj@nova.cs.rpi.edu (John Chang) writes:
>
>Does anyone know of anything that would protect prints (primarily from 
>scratches), preferrably in something easily applicable like a spray?
>As many people know, Cibachrome is very easily scratched (and dirtied),
>
 (rest deleted)

 You may stack prints with interleaving tissue to protect them from
 scratches, or you may store prints in polyethylene sleeves.
 The materials are sold by various sources - I get mine from
 a company named Light Impressions.
From: nabukama@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Nasseef Abukamail)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: New Nikon Equipments
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:39:23 GMT
Organization: Ohio University CS Dept,. Athens

Few weeks ago I met a Nikon rep. at a local camera shop. He said 
that Nikon is comming out with a new camera in August and new line
of lenses with built in motor. He did not say wether these new
equipments are aimed for pros or amatures. But I suspect Pros since 
he said something about the new lenses will be somehow compatible 
with the F4. I don't know much about the F4, is it possible for the
F4 to accept lenses with built in motor?
-- 
!:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!
  Nasseef Abukamail    \    Internet  : nabukama@ace.cs.ohiou.edu
    Athens, Ohio        \   CompuServe: 72700,1424
                         \  GEnie     : N.ABUKAMAIL
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: g8@cbnews.cb.att.com (k.d.tentarelli)
Subject: Re: Registering equipment with US Customs
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:48:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.195001.12602@philabs.philips.com> hyw@philabs.philips.com (Huay-Yong Wang) writes:

>Is there a procedure for one to register camera equipment with
>the US customs? Comments and advise will be greatly appreciated.

Yes,  take your equipment to a customs office (commonly located at airports
having international flights).  They will provide a card upon which you
list equipment and serial numbers.  They then stamp the card.  It's
a quick painless process.

I always carry the card when traveling internationally with camera
equipment, but I've never needed it.  That is, on returning to the US
I've never been questioned about where/when I bought my equipment.
Still, the card is easy insurance against possible hassle.

Ken
From: chuck@drutx.ATT.COM (LucianoC)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz (A different reason)
Keywords: opinions
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:25:38 GMT
Reply-To: chuck@drutx.ATT.COM (LucianoC)
Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO

In article <70275@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>
>This is a religious issue. The people who grew up without AF/AE are gonna
>tell you that real photographers don't use AF/AE, and us scummy AF/AE users
>are gonna tell you that those other folks are old pharts who wouldn't
>understand a technical advancement if it bit them in the tushie. 

I bought a canon A-1 back in '78 when the "old pharts" were saying, 
"Real Photographers don't eat qu^H^H^H^H^H^H use autoexposure. I decided if
I can override any time I want, why not? I have had a 14 year love affair 
with a wonderful camera!

I am sure at one time there were folks who thought, "Real photographers don't
use them newfangles electronical light meters!".

Lately I bought a Canon T-90, last week in fact!!! I love it! Now you might
think I am an old phart for not going autofocus but there are two reasons I
don't!

	1) I have an investment in lenses I am not willing to give up,
	or trade in for peanuts.

	2) While all of you guys are trading in your manual focus lenses
	I am buying them for a song. So I'll wait a while an for the cost
	of a new autofocus body, I'll buy up a half dozen nice lenses!

Someday when my ship comes in with a boatload of money on board, I'll take
an EOS-1 with a nice long list of lenses.

Chuck
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Long lenses
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:47:05 GMT

In article <23311@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>In article <45611@shamash.cdc.com> ria@dash.udev.cdc.com (Richard Askew) writes:
>
>> As general rule: never hand-hold a shot at a speed SLOWER than the 
>> focal length of the lens. ie. 300mm @ 1/500 etc.
>
>After testing, I believe that rule is not conservative enough.
>I tried hand-holding a 35mm lens at 1/60, and the tripod picture
>is noticeably sharper.  Interestingly, the same picture is also
>much sharper hand-held with a medium-format camera (Fuji 690,
>"Texas Leica") than with 35mm and the tripod makes much less
>difference.
>-- 
I have never done any "testing" to determine what lens/speed
I can use before I obtain a sharp picture and NOT a sharp
picture.  I do know from MY experiences that I have held 
lenses below 50 and have hand held shots at 1/15-1/30 and
obtained sharp slides (using Velvia or Kodachrome).  Quite a
few of my slides are shot at 1/60 or below and most of them
are hand held.  It is true I do not always get sharp
pictures when they are hand held but I would not have obtained 
sharper slides using a tripod in most cases, i.e., try shooting a 
spider on it's web and the wind is blowing, almost impossible 
(too much swaying/movement).  Some people are just able to
shoot at slower speeds, you just have to know your limitations
(no flame intended here).  SIDE NOTE:  I am very aware of my
breathing and heart rate and I mentally try to moderate my
breathing and attempt to relax to slow my heart rate and as
I am about to shoot at 1/15 (hand held), I relax, take a slow 
deep breath, hold it and I slowly press the shutter release. I
often use the self-timer to release the shutter.

The point being made is not everyone can shoot at slow
speeds and there are people who can shoot at slow speeds.
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
From: x89marenger@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: WANTED: NIKON FE-2 OR FA
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:14:13 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

I AM LOOKING FOR A NIKON FE-2 OR FA IN EXCELLENT CONDITION.  IF YOU ARE
INTERESTED IN SELLING IT SEND ME A MAIL MESSAGE AND THE PRICE YOU DESIRE.



THANK YOU.....................
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: advice wanted on the Pentax PZ1 vs the Canon EOS 10s
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:49:20 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Originator: asanders@sparta

| I have two Canon EOS-10s bodies and have been seriously
| disappointed in their apparent flimsiness.
			
			-Irving Wolfe

The flimsiness of the 10s body is apparent the moment you hold
it in your hands. The all-plastic construction does not inspire
confidence, and I'm sorry to hear that the durability of this
camera may be as questionable as at first appeared.

I very seriously considered the 10s before I bought my Nikon
N8008s. There was no doubt that--based on a feature list alone--
the Canon was a much better value. In the end, I was swayed
by the solid construction and long-term reputation of Nikon,
and I'm glad I did.
			-Alan
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Going to New Mexico (with camera!)
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John)
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:16:49 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: msus

in 12507  dougb@comm.mot.com (Doug Bank) asks (in part)

>(By the way, I know it is a bad idea to go to Carlsbad over
>Labor Day Weekend.  Is there anything else I should know?
>How long does it take to travel between Albuqurque and 
>Carlsbad?  What's the best way to get there? Where do you stay?)

Well, having lived a few miles from Carlsbad, I'd say don't
waste you time going there at all.  Seriously.  Save it for
a time when you are too old to do anything else.

I'd stick to Albuqurque and North on the high road to
Taos.  Stop in Santa Fe, of course.  It is a whole
different world.  Beautiful beyond words (IMHO)

The kind of pics you will shoot there utterly demand
medium to large format cameras.  You will see.
From: rslugg@med.unc.edu (Robert Slugg)
Subject: Re: SB-24/wedding (Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:13:40 GMT


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mason@p.igp.ethz.ch (Scott Mason)
Subject: test --ignore
Reply-To: mason@p.igp.ethz.ch
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
 Institute of Geodesy and Photogrammetry
 CH-8093 Zurich    (Switzerland)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:44:38 GMT



Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bgbauer@watcgl.waterloo.edu (ben bauer)
Subject: Re: Advices Wanted on Nikon Body
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:32:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.150101.60648@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> mqd1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MAURICE Q. DADOUN) writes:
>Hi,
>
>I have an old CHINON CE4S body (K mount) and I'd like to buy a more decent
>one. I am thinking of buying a NIKON body, a non-autofocus because I'd like
>to keep my lenses (old but very good)- I know that I'd have to buy an
>adaptator for the lenses: K mount----->Nikon mount).
>
>MY PROBLEM?
>Wich body should I get?
>
>I'd like to have on it:
>*High speed shutter (1/2000 sec.)
>*TTL measure
>*Light memorization
>*Test of depth of focus
>*Programm (speed priority & diaphragm priority)
>
>
If you can line without a NIKON, get a Ricoh XRX (XRM) it has everything
you seek (although pgm will probably not work with you lenses) plus
a built-in motor drive, multiple exposure and many other goodies.
Rumour has it that although this model is no longer in production,
there are still some around.

You might also consider a Pentax AF SLR or a Chinon CP-9 which will
accept your lenses at least with reduced exposure capabilities.
Newsgroups: rec.photo