HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Phoney Press credentials (was IFPO)
From: mckenzie@kscdl0.cad.ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:09:23 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <1992Jul27.222133.27952@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>,
ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) wrote:
> The following may be of interest on this subject. It is a quote from
> "PHOTOGRAPHER'S MARKET 1992" and is included in the chapter on photographic
> ethics:
> "Phoney press credentials:
> Some begining professional and amateur photographers.....try to "scam" their way into ... events, posing as someone they're not. ...organizations which
> actually will provide photographers with such phoney credentials - for a nominal charge. Such forgery is frowned upon ...

Bob-

You didn't comment on the article, but I assume it represents your
viewpoint.

The article seems to be emotionally biased against newcomers - those who
haven't "paid their dues".  Don't get me wrong.  Fraud is fraud.  However,
a laminated ID that identifies a person as a freelance photographer, isn't.

If a person is a serious freelance photographer, he has as much right to be
at newsworthy events as any representative of major media organizations. 
To lable him as "beginning professional" or "amateur" is merely name
calling.  Having the "photo police" evaluate a photographer's credentials
before issuing him a genuine press pass, does not consider the the more
important criteria:  does he sell his photographs, or does he starve.

Can you answer the more important question:  "How does a serious freelance
photographer obtain a legitimate press pass"?

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Subject: Re: New Equipment Jitters
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:57:59 GMT

In article <MAS.92Jul23201624@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov> mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc Sarrel) writes:
>A few days ago, I got via mail-order an 8008s and a 35-70 f/3.3-4.5
>AF.  I just noticed today that there is a bit of play in the focus
>ring when the lens is mounted on the camera and the camera is in
>either of the autofocus modes.  The amount of movement is small, but
>I'm worried.  To give you an idea of the amount of movement, one of
>the distance numbers on the focusing ring is free to move about the
>width of the white focusing mark.

Obviously not a well manufactured lens....does the focus actually change
when you move it within it "play" area? Or does it stay focused?

>Also, as a side question.  Why did they make it so that the filter
>threads on the front of the lens turn when the lens focuses?  This is
>okay for solid filters, but I think it would mess you up if you wanted
>to use a filter with a gradient, for example...

Most good gradient filters have a rotating ring, just like on a polarizer.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: irving@Happy-Man.com (Irving_Wolfe)
Subject: Re: advice wanted on the Pentax PZ1 vs the Canon EOS 10s
Bcc: irving
Reply-To: Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:43:56 GMT

In <1992Jul21.073517@wrl.dec.com> farkas@wrl.dec.com (Keith Farkas) writes:

>I have
>narrowed the field down to either the Pentax PZ1 or the Canon EOS
>10s

I have two Canon EOS-10s bodies and have been seriously
disappointed in their apparent flimsiness.  The lens mount is a
metal "ring" seated into the plastic body by friction-fit only, it
would appear, and even moderate accidental side-pressure on a long
lens is enough to disturb the fit and cause the lens mount to no
longer be parallel to the film plane.

This happened to me with each body.  In one case, the movement was
very small and I was able to fix it by brute force in the opposite
direction.  In the other case, I sent the body in for repair and
Canon refused to honor the warranty (which was still in effect) on
the theory that the camera had been abused.  I don't believe that a
properly designed, robust camera would have suffered any ill effect
from this level of "abuse" which was really only normal use.

Thus, not only is the EOS-10s designed too lightly to be a sensible
choice, in my opinion, but also it suffers from an aggressively
anti-consumer attitude on Canon's part; they charged me roughly
$100 for repair of that body, which had only cost 3.5 times that
much new.

So buy the Pentax!  I used to have a Pentax ES-II and it was a
wonderful camera.
-- 
 Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com      Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x101
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@Happy-Man.com
From: gasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Nathan Gasser ><>  )
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Anyone heard of pricing on the EOS Rebel II/ S II?
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:20:21 GMT


Aloha,

Does anyone know anything about pricing of the Canon EOS Rebel II
and Rebel S II models?  I was told they'd be delivered at the end
of August.  From what I've read in a magazine, they're big improvements
on the current models -- 1/2000 shutter, quieter film advance, red-eye
reduction, etc.

Speaking of which, does red-eye reduction systems work as promised?
Even on lower cost models, like point-and-shoots?

Nate.

--

Nathan Gasser       ><>         
gasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu     
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Commercial postings? (was Re: West coast stores? Advise PLS)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:39:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.085815.8041@sactoh0.sac.ca.us>, mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Jul26.183851.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
> >>
> >>Could any one advise me on good West coast ( LA, SF ) photo stores
> >>who do mail order. My wife is going to the US in about 5 weeks time, and
> >>I want to get some Canon gear and have her bring it back. Close to LAX
> >>or SFO would be a plus... Minnesota would be another poss.
> >>Thanks in advance.
> 
> If you want to go into a retail store, there is The Good Guys near
> SFO, in San Mateo (South on US-101, west on CA-82, south on El
> Camino Real a few blocks, next to Peter Pan BMW)
> 
> We have almost everything in 35mm except for Nikon F4, N8008s, and
  ^^
I hope I'm not being over-sensitive here, but this LOOKS like commercial
advertising over the Internet. I may be wrong, but if I'm not then this is
not an appropriate posting. A store recommendation by a customer is OK, but
the wording of this post suggests that the poster is an employee (or owner)
of the store in question. Say it ain't so Mark. Apologies if I am reading
things wrong.

> #############################################################
> # Scaramento Public Access UNIX     sactoh0.SAC.CA.US       #  
> #  (916) 649-0161, 722-6516 & 722-5068    E-Mail & USENET   #
> ################## default .signature file ##################
From: rjw@nsa.hp.com (Richard Webber)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Wooden fields as mantle pieces?
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:41:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: dogtooth.RJW.92Jul30174128
Distribution: rec
Organization: Networked Systems Architecture, Hewlett-Packard Company

In article <DENNY.92Jul30161531@helium.tss.com> denny@tss.com (Denny Page) writes:

   Hmm...  I was in a camera store today (Bear Images in PA if anyone
   is familiar) and briefly discussed my intended purchase of a Wisner
   TF with the (owner?).

   The man seemed almost alarmed that I was considering the purchase of a
   *wooden* camera.  He claimed that people who owned wooden cameras used
   them mostly as mantle pieces, rather than for shooting.  He seemed
   particularly fond of the word "warp" and its derivatives.

[Story deleted...]

   Comments?


   Denny


Sounds like Jim - the owner of Bear Images.  He'll talk to you for hours -
but he is very knowledgable and his advice is usually good.  He supplies
John Sexton with some of his darkroom equipment, by the way.  That having
been said, I did notice he had a used Deardorff 8x10 (wooden of course) 
for sale.  He described it as a "beautiful camera".  Now I suppose he may
have been literal - he never said it was good for taking pictures!  But
I did get the impression he would have sold it to me if I had been interested.
Double standards perhaps?

In general I would trust his judgement, but bear in mind he tends to sell
THE best equipment to discerning customers.  He will, therefore, tell you
that a $5000 Linhoff Master Technika is better that a $1300 Wisner Classic
Field.  He's right - but I know which I could afford!

Richard
From: roy@sage.cc.purdue.edu (James S. White)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Looking for Schools in the New York Area
Keywords: New York City
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:12:11 GMT
Distribution: usa


    Could anyone suggest a good photography school in the New York area?
    (in/near the city)  A photographically-inclined friend of mine may be
    moving there soon.

--
JS White
roy@sage.cc.purdue.edu
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:06:24
Organization: CSUA/UCB
	<1992Jul30.225322.8441@PacBell.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM's message of Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:53:22 GMT

John P. Gloria asks:

    >With today's desktop publishing on PC, all you need is a cheap
    >laser printer, a 386 PC, a word publisher like Word Perfect (or
    >other more powerful word processors), you can easily put out a
    >free paper (10 copies?  distributed to you friends and
    >relatives?).  What is more you need for you to be as legitimate
    >as the state's largest paper with circulation of 500,000?  Is
    >there is registry of newspaper publisher?  What?

    How much do you figure it would cost you to purchase the
    aformentioned equipment?

A small fraction of what it would cost to buy a 300/2.8 lens, which is
the kind of equipment recommended earlier in this thread to try to
pass yourself off as a pro.  Besides, you can buy computer and laser
printer time by the hour in xerox stores, and many people already own
or have access to this kind of equipment.  The idea of personal
newspapers and magazines is not farfetched at all.  Thousands of such
publications ("fanzines") exist; they can be a lot of fun to produce.
From: stevek@gobi.UUCP (Stephen Kogge)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: a question about Velvia
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:42:22 GMT
Organization: Underwater Imaging

In article <1992Jul22.160514.14150@javelin.sim.es.com> rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs) writes:
>Yes, Velvia is available in bulk.  I bought a roll from B&H for $100 (and 
>shared it with my friends).  Current ads show Adorama at $100 and B&H at
>$95 (that's about $5/36-exp roll.  Better than $10!  I haven't seen the
>bulk rolls in any local store yet.
>
>Ron Speirs, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah


	Ron I would check with Fuji about that film. I decided to buy a
100 foot roll so I called the local (Wash DC, Md, and Va) stores and got the
answer that they did not stock 100 ft spools. I called Fuji Tech support
and at first they said OH yes! Here are 5 distributors in your area. Calls to
all of them resulted in a call back to Fuji. A few hours of telephone tag
and the final decision/answer from Fuji was that 100ft spools were not
part of Fuji's import program. At first they were willing to sell it me
directly if I could not find a distributor. But since they could not
get it I was out of luck. Maybe I could find a gray market spool but
all bets were off as to the quality of this spool.
	I did not get a reason why 100 ft spool of Velvia were not part
of Fuji's import program, just that they had no plans to import it.
	I ended up buying a block from Vienna Photo.
	Not importing 100ft spools of Velvia has to be one of few
stupid moves Fuji has ever made.
	Somebody else want to try Tech support to see if they get a different
answer about bulk Velvia?

	Steve Kogge
	stevek@uimage.com
From: usatoday@daimi.aau.dk (Peter Dalsgaard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Small Flash For Minolta 7000i
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:45:38 GMT
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark

john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:

>I have a Minolta 7000i.  It does not have a built-in flash.
>I am looking for a tiny flash that will work with this camera.
>Does anyone have any suggestions?

>I have a nice Minolta flash (the 5200i), but it is really big and
>klunky to carry around when there is little chance that I will
>need a powerful flash.  I hope to find a real small flash that
>I could use in museums.

I have a Minolta 2000i flash on my Dynax 7000i. The flash is small,
and with build-in AF detection redlight. The flash is not very
powerfull, but handy and quite good in most situations


--
   *** Peter Dalsgaard               ***  
   *** usatoday@daimi.aau.dk         *** 
   *** University of Aarhus, Denmark ***
   *** Only Amiga makes it possible  ***
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz
Keywords: opinions
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:14:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul21.201422.20030
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Jul21.001930.7832@u.washington.edu> watters@darwin.genetics.washington.edu (Mike Watters) writes:
>
>Personally I find the AF cameras to be a big pain in the backside.  You
>squeeze the shutter release and then EVENTUALLY the camera gets around to
>taking the shot (Unless it doesn't like your composition. :)

Which camera were you using, sure doesn't sound like it was a good one. I
have a Cannon and a Minolta, and both AF systems will keep up with their
built in 4fps/5fps motor drives with no problem......its hardly a situation
where you actually have to wait for the camera to focus, and it can do it
faster then your human fingers can....:-)

>As you have probably guessed by now, I feel the overly complex focus and
>exposure systems on cameras right now are a waste of time.  They simply
>cannot take the place of a little something between your ears.  

I, being an advocate of AE/AF cameras, believe that you could use that
device between your ears to better your pictures, then having to worry
about focus, etc, etc......

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mbianchi@dino.waterloo.edu (Maurizio Bianchi)
Subject: Re: Best Magazine for Photography
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:29:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.192019.22116@linus.mitre.org> rajiv@hilltop.mitre.org (Rajiv Kohli) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.064704.28554@sys.sweden.dg.com> robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.143252.7172@linus.mitre.org>, rajiv@hilltop.mitre.org (Rajiv Kohli) writes:
>>
>>> Which is the best magazine to read/subscribe?
>>> 
>>> I am looking for a magazine or to be part of a group that will
>>> help improve photography results. No, I am not anymore interested
>>> in the cameras that are comming out. I have a minolta 7000. Yes,
>>> a few addons I wouldn't mind.
>>
>>So you want a magazine that's more geared towards showing pictures than
>>towards the technicalities behind creating them?
>
>NO! the other way around. I am looking for a magazine that show the picture
>and have a footnote on what kind of setting was used to get that particular
>picture,etc. 
>
>What I don't want is a magazine, that is really geared to the complete field
>of photography and also has a few pictures here and there.

I think that PHOTOGRAPHIC is the magazine you looking for. It has quite a lot of articles that
covers about everything from nature, flowers, travel, fashion, art and special effects. The
show quite a lot of picture and tell you all the theory and setting yoy must do in order to
take that shot. There are also a few reports about the last camera, but they are done in a way
that from some of them you could pick out some new ideas to try with you camera.

Hope it helps.

Maurizio
From: chuck@drutx.ATT.COM (LucianoC)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Consider Plastic Was: fiberglass/wood sinks for home darkrooms
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:08:59 GMT
Reply-To: chuck@drutx.ATT.COM (LucianoC)
Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO

In article <Brwtxp.32t@watserv1.waterloo.edu> imprint@watserv1.waterloo.edu (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper) writes:

   Has anyone tried doing this? I don't imagine the chemicals would eat
   away at fiberglassed wood, assuming one keeps the thing in a reasonable
   state of cleanliness.
	My questions concern construction of the beast.

I built a custom darkroom sink using 1/4 inch PVC plastic. A 4 x 8 foot sheet
can be had for about $80.00 . I designed the largest sink I could get out of a
single sheet. I built a wooden frame out of 2x4's. The frame acted like a 
cradle to hold all of the pieces while I glued them. I glued them using 
a primer and solvent cement combination obtained from the place where I bought
the plastic. Don't use the cements at the home improvement store it is not
as good.

I figure the whole caper cost me ~$100.00.

Now I'd like to get another sheet to build a print washer and a couple of 
other items.

Good luck,
chuck
From: tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: advice needed on nikon f3
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:37:50 GMT
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA

sttay@athena.mit.edu (Stephen T Tay) writes:

> i recently bought a used nikon f3 (the non-high eyepoint version). unfortunately,
> the camera came without the instruction manual. would appreciate if someone could
> help me with the following:
> 
> 1. i think there are two battery compartments in the base plate of the body. what
> are these compartments for?
> 
> 2. the f3 comes with a de-2 viewfinder. does this viewfinder give 100% coverage?

Steven,

1. There is one battery compartment in the base. The similar coin-slotted
cover underneath the film cassette is removed when the motor drive is 
attached, to allow power film rewind. (The motor has a cubby hole to
keep the cover when removed).

2. Yes - all F3 finders show the limits of the focus screens, which give
"virtually" 100% coverage. In my experience, coverage is complete.

tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rauch@groucho.tapir.Caltech.EDU (Kevin Rauch)
Subject: Price disparities of (circular) polarizers
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:33:25 GMT


I've been looking around for a circular polarizer for my Elan, and noticed
that there's a very large range in prices. For 58mm (what I need), from 
about $25 for a Hoya at the local Fedco to $80 for a B+W or Canon's own from
B&H. I can see how multicoating would make some difference (I can't tell if
the Hoya is coated at all--does anyone know one way or the other?), but a
factor of >3 in price?? Does anyone know whether the polarizing efficiency 
(the percent polarization of the transmitted light) varies significantly among
different brands? I remember seeing polarizing material in the Edmund
Scientific catalog, with the high efficiency stuff (>99%) being considerably 
more expensive than the lower grade sheets. It makes me wonder whether the more
expensive ones might actually be more effective. Any thoughts or experiences?

-- 
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
& Kevin Rauch, Theoretical Astrophysics, California Institute of Technology  &
&  email: rauch@tapir.caltech.edu                                            &
&   "Got my sights on the stars. Won't get that far, but I'll try anyway..." &
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  --N. P.  &&&&&&&&& 
                                                         &&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
& Kevin Rauch, Theoretical Astrophysics, California Institute of Technology  &
&  email: rauch@tapir.caltech.edu                                            &
&   "Got my sights on the stars. Won't get that far, but I'll try anyway..." &
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  --N. P.  &&&&&&&&& 
                                                         &&&&&&&&&&&&&
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: swatko@airbag.enet.dec.com (Mike Swatko)
Subject: Re: spotting red-eye on prints
Reply-To: swatko@airbag.enet.dec.com (Mike Swatko)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua, NH
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:42:52 GMT

--
In article <1992Jul20.190616.25271@news.iastate.edu>, bipin@iastate.edu (Bipin K Dalmia) writes:
>>I've used a very sharp black marker on both 4x6" and 8x12" glossy prints, 
>                        ^^^^^
>>and the results are excellent.  The only way you can tell is if you
>>hold the print up to view reflected light, and notice that the print's
>>surface isn't homogeneous.
>
>wouldn't a green marker be better than a black for RED eye?? any
>fine-art buffs out there? 

What's the point of using a green marker?  If you going for the
Red + Green = black theorty, why not just use a black marker in the first
place?

To look at it another way, what if you're using a green marker and 
accidentally make a dot that's too big?  Now you've got "Green eye".
At least with black, it would just look like larger pupils.

Or just avoid the subject altogether and get an off camera flash.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Swatko                             !  swatko@airbag.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corporation           !  swatko@airbag.enet.dec.com
Corporate User Publications Engineering !  swatko%airbag@decwrl.dec.com
Nashua, New Hampshire                   !  ...!decwrl!airbag.enet!swatko
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: philt@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (philip.tomaskovic)
Subject: Re: Lens extenders for IS1
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:39:45 GMT
Summary: IS-1 extenders

In article <12347@jstewart>, jstewart@Software.Mitel.COM (John Stewart) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.143800.14117@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> philt@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (philip.tomaskovic) writes:
> >I was at the camera shop the other day and while looking at the IS1
> >they told me I could buy their set of lens converters (normally
> >used on camcorder zoom lens) and use those instead of the Olympus
> >200mm extender for the IS1. They sold a set of the 28mm (.65x) and
> >200mm (1.5x) for $79, while the Olypus converters retail for $89
> >each.
> 
> I saw an enlargement of a fish-eye one once. I was not impressed, as the
> edges were not at all sharp, and not at all well colour corrected. (term ?
> at the edges the colours separated)


I saw in a magazine ad today, one store listing a number of different
filters and extenders for IS-1. I've only seen Olympus list the 28mm,
200mm, and a close-up macro.

This list was headed IS=1 accessories and included a fisheye, 270mm,
300, and 400mm extenders. Does anyone know if these are "authentic"
Olympus IS-1 add-ons or are they selling something designed for
something else that happens to fit the IS-1? Given the 200mm was
"only" $49 (vs $65 for the Olympus from Camera World Oregon), I'm
guessing these are some other brand. The >300mm add-ons were over $150.


Phil
Newsgroups: rec.photo