HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: High speed useful ? (was Re: Nikon N90 technobabble)
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:37:40 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

luong@naxos.inria.fr (Quang-Tuan Luong) writes:
: In article <PHR.92Sep4102515@soda.berkeley.edu>, phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
: 
: |> They should also add TTL flash metering and a 1/8000 shutter (the more
: |> recent FM2's already use the same shutter as the N8008) and call it
: |> the FM3.
: 
: I don't understand the utility of high speed shutters. On my 8008, I think
: I have never shot beyond 1/1000s, and I cannot imagine any real situation 
: where 1/8000s would be useful.

Suppose you are using T-max P3200 at EI 25000 on the beach on a sunny day.
(That would be 1/25000 sec at f/22 -- you would need some neutral density
filters, too!) Or maybe Scotchchrome 1000 pushed 3 stops.  That would be
1/8000 at f/22, ok?

There also might be some really fast action you would like to catch.
Hummingbirds, or something...

: Using high speed means that you use also high
: sensibility film, and/or wide aperture, and this is known to reduce 
: significantly image quality.

It's great to have high resolution, fine grain, and good colors, but it's
sometimes difficult to get any image at all.  Also, the large grain of
the faster films is sometimes desired by the photographer ... grainy images
of beach scenes?  Hey, I might try that!

Jay Ts
From: tom@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Tom McCain)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: How to make a flash less bright?
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:57:04 GMT
Organization: Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN


Recently I tried to take some photos of some of my marine corals.  The
photos turned out okay except the flash was a little too bright.  I
have a Nikon SB18 flash and a Nikon FG camera.  I was not using the
camera in the program mode and I'm not sure if the TTL works that way.
I just set the flash in the manual mode a changed my f-stop.  If
anyone has some good techniques to keep the flash from washing out the
subject at close distances, I'd appreciate a tip!
--

Tom McCain 
tom@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Kiev 88 (as in Shutterbug) 
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 01:52:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In the September issue of Shutterbug, there is an ad from Hayden regarding
Kiev 88 (6x6) complete setup for $595.  Has anyone purchased it?  How is
it?  What is the comparable price for a Hassable (sp?) setup?
From: bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Digital Photography
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:46:40 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <PD.92Sep9020725@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
|Digital photography (as in digital cameras) is still very expensive.
|My guess is that it will take many years until it will become
|affordable by amateur photographers.

You can buy a Canon still video camera with a Mac interface for about
$900. Yup, that's too expensive for the average Joe, but I have used
one to take instant photos for desktop publishing, and it works better
than you might think.

bill coderre
Newsgroups: rec.photo,rec.backcountry
From: djb@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.j.bryant)
Subject: Re: What tripod do you use when backpacking?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Ohio
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:49:41 GMT

Regarding "What tripod do you use when backpacking?", tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke ) wrote:

  >>   The ballhead that comes with it isn't that great, though - why the
  >>    hell can't you *fix* it to the tripod so it won't unscrew?
  >
  > I find it pretty annoying as well.  I haven't bothered yet, but I think the
  > problem with the head spinning off the tripod can be cured with a bit of
  > judicious drilling and pin-insertion.

Before you go drilling your tripod and ball heads, you might want to try using
some Loctite.  It should be available at your nearest big hardware store. 
As I recall, you can get Loctite Blue, which is semi-permanent, or Loctite Red,
which is permanent.  I've not used it, but have seen several recommendations
for it from folks who don't want their (tripod) heads coming unscrewed.

                                         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
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Infrared Film
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:56:07 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics

Robert Drongowski writes:

> The Infrared Film which I subsequently used was still "good" after
> sitting in my refrigerator for 2 years.  The people from which I
> purchased the film said that it would last 'forever' if kept
> refrigerated.


I'm not sure how closely you looked at that film, but it would stay better
in a freezer.  But as to staying forever, I would wonder where the stats
came from.

Even in a freezer, however, there is some degradation.  A couple hundred
of our 8x10 HSIRs, stored in a freezer since 1987, exhibited base+fog densities
of 0.28 +/- 0.04 after exposure and processing this year.  While recently
bought 4x5s were only 0.18 +/- 0.04.


eugene kowaluk
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lease a slide projector
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:07:15 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

pm3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Predeep Menon) wrote:
> I need a slide projector for a slide show, during one of the forthcoming
> weekends. Am willing to pay reasonable rental rates. If you have a slide
> projector and are willing to lend it out (I assure you that proper care
> will be taken), or know of someone/someplace from whom/where I can get
> one, please e-mail me. Thank You.

Hey, I've got three of them (150W 35mm, 500W 35mm, and 6x6).  Just pop over
and collect them...

Or, to put it rather more directly: read the goddam manual for your news
system and learn what the "Distribution:" line is for.  And the same goes
for anyone else posting ads of only parish-pump relevance.

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hisashi@neclpd.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Hisashi Naganuma)
Subject: Two 120 film in One Reel
Keywords: Development
Organization: NEC America, Inc.,  San Jose, CA., USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:28:35 GMT

I often take five to ten rolls of 120 film a day.  The problem is
that I do not like film development. Unlike printing, film development
process is just tiresome for me and no fun at all.

I have been using Paterson 3 roll tank (5 roll tank is too heavy to handle)
and trying to develop two 120 rolls per reel to save development efforts
because:

 1. Patterson reel accomodate 220 film. This means total groove length is
    enough for two 120 films. However Kodak does not make 220 for Tri-X Pan.
    (T-Max and Tri-X Pan professional have 220, but I hate both.
    This is another issue)
 2. I can save film developer.  Because I usually use D76(1:1) as oneshot.
    With same 500cc, I can develop 2 rolls.


This is how I am trying:

 1. Put 1st roll into the reel entirely.
 2. Put only the head of 2nd roll into the reel.
 3. Connect the tail of the first roll and head of the next with adhesive
    tape.  The tape should be water resistant.
 4. Put rest of the portion of second roll into the reel.


So far I developed several times successfully with this method.  Please let me
have better idea, info. or suggestion on this issue.


from a lazy photographer,

Hisashi Naganuma
hisashi@lpd.sj.nec.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mjallen@bnr.co.uk (Matthew Allen)
Subject: Nikon F90 information available
Followup-To: poster
Organization: BNR Europe Limited, Harlow, GB
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:02:25 GMT


Having obtained an F90 (N90 in some countries) I'm willing to answer questions
about it from those who are considering obtaining one but can't get enough
information.  Some caveats:
1) I'm used to an F301 so don't expect comparisons against the F801 or F4!
2) My lenses are presently all manual focus except for an f1.4 50mm AF.
3) I'm expecting questions along the lines of "is the tripod socket in the
   middle or at the edge" rather than "how many lines per furlong can you get
   using Sellotape 100ASA" * +
   I'm also not expecting questions that are documented in the Nikon brochure.
4) Our news system is dodgy; mail me.

* I'm not claiming that resolution is unimportant, just that I'm not going to
  do the measurements.
+ If you've tried off-centre Nikon tripod sockets on Metz flashgun brackets
  then you'll know why this is important!

		Matthew

--
Matthew Allen, Directory Products Development, BNR Europe, Harlow, UK.
Mail: mjallen@bnr.co.uk                          Phone: +44 279 402783
Matthew Allen, Directory Products Development, BNR Europe, Harlow, UK.
Mail: mjallen@bnr.co.uk                          Phone: +44 279 402783
From: dpc@eng.cam.ac.uk (D.P. Cryer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: B&W Slide film
Date: 8 Sep 92 08:41:23 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

In <cicero.1ehp@hotcity.COM> cicero@hotcity.COM (Andreas Locicero) writes:

>In article <laks4sINNkcm@almaak.usc.edu>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
>writes:
>>Now, after having had a lot of fun with a Nikon 6006 shooting (color)
>>slides, I'd like to try my hand at B&W slides.  What would you suggest
>>for film?  How is it processed?  Would Kodalux-as-usual work?
>>
>>Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu

>As far as I know, no one makes a black and white slide film anymore.  You must
>shoot a negative film and process it specially for reversal to get black and
>white slides.  This means doing the processing yourself or trying to find a pro
>lab willing to do it for you.

>A.J. LoCicero >> cicero@hotcity.com

I believe that AGFA make a B&W slide film called AGFA DIA-DIRECT, which is
sold (in the UK at least) process paid at a comparable price to colour
slide film. I imagine this is also available in the US. Can't remember
the ASA but I think that it's around 50.

Hope this helps

David Cryer                               dpc@eng.cam.ac.uk
From: andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:58:07 GMT
Subject: Re: Mamiya 645 View Camera (sort of)
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

tjl@cbnews.cb.att.com (timothy.j.lipetz) wrotes about:
> 
> A MAMIYA 645 VIEW CAMERA (sort of)
> 
> Since there has been so much discussion of the
> benefits of tilt and rise lately, I thought I'd
> describe what I have been doing with it lately.
> 

What an intriguing post!

I found it very interesting, since last year tried something similar. 
I made an adaptor to mount my Mamiya 645 to the back of my view camera. 
This involved installing an aluminum plate into a an old Graflock film 
pack holder and attaching a metal body mounting ring which I scavenged 
from KEH (it was originally intended for attaching the Rodenstock Imagon 
lens to the Mamiya 645).  So, this adaptor attaches to the back of a any 
"international back" view camera just like any Graflock back.

My purpose was to try using my excellent Nikkor 450mm M and Nikkor T
600/800mm view camera lenses with the camera, hopefully with the
Mamiya teleconverter, to achieve 900, 1200 and 1600mm focal lengths.

I found out several things:

1) My view camera is barely sturdy enough to attach such a large
   camera to the back, and the resulting magnifications really place a
   premium on rigidity. I need a much stronger, heavier and rigid view
   camera (currently I have a Linhoff TK45). Even then, I suspect the
   slightest breeze would be a terrible problem!

2) The adaptor design introduced significant vignetting and some
   interesting edge diffraction effects.

3) There was also some vignetting within the camera body.

4) The resulting viewfinder image was very dim and very hard to focus
   (since the fastest lens is f/9 and I was trying to use this for
   night photography)! And reciprocity effects were next to impossible
   to manage!

Anyhow, I ended up with one nice shot that did print out to 16x20,
though it is not as sharp as my usual results with the Mamiya.  So,
when I spotted a used 500mm f/5.6 Mamiya Sekor at a good price I
grabbed that. The optics in that lens aren't as good as my long
Nikkors but it is easier to focus, vibrations and reciprocity are much
less a problem, and overall results are sharp enough to consistently
make nice 16x20 prints, even with the 2X TC.

Anyhow, it was a fun experiment, even if it didn't pan out.

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    % Andy Cassino                                       %
    % andyc@hplsla.hp.com                                %
    % Hewlett-Packard - Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: daniel@vcp1.vcp.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Info on Better wide angle
Organization: 
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:56:27 GMT

 vemuri@informix.com (Sudhakar Vemuri) writes:

> 1. Since I need to take more nature photos, Should I buy a 28mm-50mm camera 
> with additional lenses to add for higher zooms.

What sort of nature photos are you after?

A wide angle lens is useful for landscapes, or for fitting a lot in when
you can't move back further.

If you want to take close-ups of flowers etc, then you need a macro, or
a tele-macro, say 90mm.

If you want to shoot eagles' nests high up on a cliff, you need a long
telephoto 300 mm or greater.

> 
> 2. If I buy 35-50mm or 35-80mm zoom, can I add 28mm-*mm lenses to it ?

If you want a wide angle, you are better going down to at least 28mm.  For
Minolta, the 28-80 is better quality than the 35-80, and the 28-105 is better
still (xi series lenses, here).  Of course, with higher quality comes higher
price.
I is also a good idea to try to avoid duplicating your lens focal length
ranges.  i.e. if you think you will want a 28mm lens, don't buy a 35-80,
unless you are happy to buy a 28mm fixed focal length lens.


> 3. How often does one needs to use zooms higher than 80mm ? 

It depends on what photos you are taking.  If you want to stalk wildlife,
all of the time.  If you want to stalk flowers, never - they don't run away.
                                                                            
Hope this helps, but for more detailed answers, post a more detailed question.
i.e. do you want to shoot landscapes, flowers or wild animals?  Do you
want to take photos in low lighting conditions?  
Do you know about f-stops and shutter speed? Do you wantto learn?


Danny

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc Sarrel)
Subject: Reference for lens info?
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:40:44 GMT

Is there a good, impartial reference out there about different lenses.
Specifically, I'm interested in Nikkor.  Is the Nikon Handbook (or
whatever) a good reference, or does it just cheerlead?

There seems to be a lot of discussion in this newsgroup about the
relative quality of various lenses.  But the coverage seems to be
haphazard (I know, that's what I get for reading news...). :-)

advTHANKSance

Marc
--
Marc Sarrel			"Strange as it seems,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory	 There's been a run of crazy dreams,
mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov		 And a man who can interpret could go far --
				 Could become a star."
From: hucker@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (S A Hucker)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: slide copying
Keywords: slide copying   bellows
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:29:58 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Hello,

I am seeking advice on the topic of slide copiers.  We have an
Olympus camera, 50 mm lense, macro lense, and bellows system.
Would anyone care to comment on what the best way to get slide
copying capability would be?  

Scott Hucker
Purdue University
hucker@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Auto Focu button on Canon EOS cameras (was Re: Photograping Whales)
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 08:40:28 GMT

In article <PD.92Sep3195233@horus.sics.se>, pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.130735.27132@jyu.fi> konkkola@jyu.fi (Markku Konkkola) writes:
> 
>>In article 92Sep1111103@horus.sics.se, pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>>> 
>>> With a Canon USM lens you can manually adjust the focus even if the
>>> lens is in AF mode. You press the shutter down halfway and if you
>>> don't like what the AF thinks should be in focus, you can quickly
>>> twist the focusing ring manually and take the picture.
>>> 
Beware, the later USMs, havee the focus ring permanantly connected and you
can manualy focus any time. The 'L' USMs can be manualy focused *after AF has
completed/given up* but not all the time. This is set by a CF in the body.

>>> The Canon EOS RT (and perhaps also the EOS 10) can be customized to
> 
>>At least EOS 1, 10 and 100 can use this way.

Also the 630.

> 
>>> use a separate button for initiating AF. This means that you can let
>>> the camera set the focus automatically and then leave it at that
>>> position for every following shot.

Another CF. set the AElock button to AF and EAlock

> 
> Hate to spoil your day, but you're wrong about the 100.

Don't know. May be it's burried in the barcode stuff some where


~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Re: Digital Photography
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:58:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.150459.22412@skylinx.sa.com>, rob@skylinx.sa.com (Rob Cartaino) writes:
...
> If you are interrested photographs solely for the purpose viewing
> them on a computer screen (i.e. .GIF format) which method will produce
> a better quality output:
> 
> 	1. taking a 35mm photograph and scanning it with a color scanner or
> 
> 	2. taking the photograph with one of these digital cameras?
> 
> Also, assuming the resolutions your are trying to achieve 
> are for IBM-compatable VGA/SVGA monitors 
> (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, and maybe 1280x1024) which digital
> cameras can handle these resolution without being overkill?
> 

Well, it's not as clear cut as many may think. The top end digital cameras
and low end scanners have overlaped now. IE, a cheap scanner is not as good
as a Rollie 600x digital back. OTOH, no camera yet comes near a Hell or
Interleaf scanner. The new scanner mentioned in a recent post is the first
I have seen mentioned that I consider has a chance of not suffering from
nasty quanitization effects. Still not cheap though, and not ever likely to
be, as the number f people who know what is required for high quality and who
care, is a very small percentage of the consumer market. Without the vast
numbers selling, there isn't the money to support the development and tooling
costs.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Subject: Re: NoviceQuestion: Danger of really old film
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:58:38 GMT

In article <18bk45INNs42@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bn112@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Katopis) writes:
|>
|>My friend has some old film that he never developed.  I mean
|>really old, twenty years.  Even if the photographs were
|>developable, is there a threat of combustion, explosion, etc
|>from the storage of old film?
|>-chris
"Safety" film based on acetate and NOT nitrocellulose has been common since
before the '60's, so I doubt you are in any danger.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sparks@col.hp.com (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: New Saunders 4x5 Enlarger Model ??
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:53:49 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

In article <1992Sep9.164142.1443@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> bosslet@gaas.enet.dec.com (Ron Bosslet) writes:
>
>	I'm currently trying to decide on a 4x5 Enlarger and I've 
>	narrowed the choice down to the Beseler 45MX and the Saunders
>	LPL 4500II.  Right now, I'm leaning towards the Saunders, mainly
>	because it can be upgraded (from B&W diffusion head to Dichroic
>	color head) more economically than the Beseler.

If you are going upgrade to a color head later, just get the color head
now!  Especially with the Saunders, the difference in price between the
B&W head and the color head is minimal and the color head is much more
flexable (it works great for VC papers as well).  From what I have heard,
the VC head for the Saunders is not that great because a filter is always
in the light path and the light output is rather low (someone mentioned
3 1/2 minute exposure times for some brand of graded paper).  The color
head can remove all filters to work just like the B&W head and provide
the filters necessary for VC and color work.

>	I've heard some vague rumours that Saunders was going to 
>	introduce a new 4x5 or perhaps a modified 4500(III ?) this
>	fall - maybe at Photokina.  Does anyone out there have any
>	"real" info concerning this possibility ?  If so, I'd
>	appreciate hearing from you, either here in the group or
>	via Email (I'll be sure to summarize later).  It'd be a
>	real bummer to order the II model and find out there is a
>	new III (and I could get the II for half the $$ I paid :-).

I saw a new product blurb in the latest Darkroom Techniques Magazine
(Sept/Oct) about the new Saunders.  It has a brighter bulb (250W I
think) and the head is farther from the column to allow more room for a
large easel.  No price or availability was given, but it has been
introduced.  The article did say that the current enlarger will continue
to be produced as well (it will probably cost less).

The brighter bulb might make the VC head worthwhile, especially if they
add a white light option to the VC head (I can't remember if this was
also one of the changes with the new enlarger).

>	If anyone has any opinions re: my choice of Saunders vs.
>	Beseler, I'd like to hear from them also ( hope I don't
>	start a religious war here :-).

I have a Beseler and want to replace it with something else (probably a
Saunders).  I would not recommend the Beseler to anyone, it's just not
made very well (though I have heard that the old Beseler enlargers were
made much better).  I have read only good things about the Saunders with
a color head.  Unless you can afford a Durst, the Saunders is probably the
best choice (Omega, the other brand, seems to have trouble staying in 
business).

John Sparks
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: What's "telephoto ratio"
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:38:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.162515.5660@cello.hpl.hp.com>, jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
> 
> I was just looking at a Sigma ad and saw the following:
> 
>     APO 1000mm F8 ZEN
>     World's first 1000mm autofocus lens.  Extremely
>     compact, telephoto ratio of 0.58.
> 
> So what is "telephoto ratio"?
> 

Its the ratio of the 'front' positive lens elements focal length to the
FL of the entire lens. In thois case it indicates the front element group(s)
have a focal length of 580 mm, and normaly implies that the overall lens will
be a bit bigger than a 580 mm 'long' lens. About 600 mm in this case, allowing
40mm or so back distance.

~Paul