HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Why Black Corners on The Pictures?
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:03:01
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: zug.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: yyh@osustat.mps.ohio-state.edu's message of 21 Nov 92 01:33:59 GMT


Your filter is too small for your lens.  The black corners are the
out-of-focus edges of the Cokin filter holder.

--

      -- Philip Greenspun

-------------------------------------------------------------
MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
545 Technology Square, Rm 433, Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-8574
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: terryfry@access.digex.com (Terry Fry)
Subject: Re: Concert Film Results.
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:25:46 GMT

In article <By6qxC.G8s@world.std.com> CGKarras@world.std.com (Christopher G Karras) writes:
>The color balance with the Kodak 400 print film I used was terrible. 
>There was a very yellow cast to the scene.  When I looked at a package
>insert I finally noticed that a filter is indicated for tungsten lighting
>(I think, I do not have the info in front of me) and the ISO should be
>programmed at about 100 rather than the 400.  Is this the right procedure,
>or is there a complaint I should lodge with my photo finisher for bad
>printing?

I was under the impression that Tungsten balancing was done during printing
for print films.  If they are machine printed, it would come out
wrong.
From: ray@tsw.UUCP (Ray Izumi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: The Kodak disposable underwater camera
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:36:09 GMT
Organization: The System Works, Redmond, WA

>I'm going to the Virgin Islands in about 2 1/2 weeks and I want to go
>snorkeling.  I was wondering if anyone has ever used the disposable cameras
>that you can take underwater?  If so, how deep can you go?  What is the
>quality of the pictures ( are they sharp or fuzzy?)  Are there any other
>companies that make a similar camera, like Fuji maybe?
>
Sue,

Email to archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov or ames!archive-server and make
your subject line read "send scuba index". You will get back an index of
articles on scuba, including one called underwater_cameras.txt, which has
lots of info on the Kodak and Fuji UW cameras.

Also, subscribe to rec.scuba and look for photo articles. Email me if you
need more help/info.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ray Izumi, The System Works, Redmond, WA     206-823-4685      uunet!tsw!ray
"Put the pillow over your head, scream and cry - the garbage is coming!"
           - New York City Commissioner of Sanitation
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Same aperture on different focal lengths?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:48:29 GMT
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
NNTP-Posting-Host: lannert.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de

In article <7010@news.duke.edu> yavor@acpub.duke.edu (Yavor B. Parashkevov) writes:

>Sure, the amount of light is the same. The f-number is simply the
>ratio between the diameter of the diaphragm and the focal length, i.e.
>f8 means 1/8, so for a 50mm the diaphragm will be 6.25mm wide and for
>a 100mm - 12.5mm wide. The longer lens in our example will transmit
>1/2 the light that the shorter lens would if the diaphragm openings
 ^^^
isn't it 1/4 ?
>were of the same size. Accordingly, to transmit the same amount of
>light, the longer lens must have an aperture diameter twice that of
>the shorter lens. You can see then why the diaphragm size is
>expressed as a ratio and not as a linear measure. To be precise, the
>actual light transmission is always less than ideal and depends on the
>number of lens elements and the quality of the coating, because
>internal reflections reduce the amount of light transmitted. Todays
>lenses suffer much less from internal reflections than the old
>uncoated models, and there should not be a significant difference in
>light transmission between any two lenses set at the same aperture
>(f-stop). The only exception are perhaps the catadioptric (mirror)
>lenses, [...]

Basically I agree with what you said (although it's not actually the
aperture size that counts, but the size of the aperture stop *as seen*
through the front element; with some lenses this does make a difference
[look through a wide-angle from the back: the aperture actually is much
larger than it seems when you see it from the front]). (*)

But I don't believe that there are no significant differences in light
transmissions for various lenses at the same f-stop. I once read a
model calculation some time ago that showed a difference of > 1/3 f-stop
between a multi-element zoom lens and a simple prime lens; this would be
noticeable e.g. on slide film. (I can find the reference in case anyone
is interested.)
---
(*) This is the reason why the influence of diffraction on the sharpness
    of a short wide-angle ( <= 20mm) stopped down to f22 is not so bad
    as one might expect from the formula  (focal length)/22  that yields
    something < 1mm.
    The size of the exit pupil which can be seen through the rear element(s)
    is often closer to the actual aperture diameter.
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Gedanken sind nicht stets parat,
man schreibt auch, wenn man keine hat."             Wilhelm Busch
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: parsons1@applelink.apple.COM (Don Parsons)
Subject: Re: 80-200/f2.8 for $$$, why?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:50:26 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Nov19.035957.3597@walter.bellcore.com>, jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen) writes:
> 
> There seems to be a lot of interest in fast but expensive zoom lenses such
> as the 80-200/f2.8. I am sure there must be special applications where
> the additional stop worth the money, but I can't understand why there is
> so much interest in paying the large premium for the extra stop.
> 
> For example, the Canon EF 80-200/f2.8 L costs $925 (B&H as a reference), 
> while the 50-200/f3.5-4.5 L costs $499. These two lenses equal optically.
> The differences are the maximum aperture and the minimum focal length.
> I would take the 50-200L any day to save that $425 and to gain
> the 50-80 range at the sacrifice of one stop.
> 
> But then, I am no pro. There must be reasons for the popularity of the
> 80-200/f2.8 lens. What are they?
> 
> Jason Chen

Regarding the two Canon EF lenses that you cited, part of that expense
should also be attributed to the fact that the EF 80-200/f2.8 L has a constant
aperture through all focal lengths, where as the EF 50-200/f3.5-4.5 L has
a variable aperture. That little feature adds a nice chunk to cost of production,
in addition to the extra stop.

As a personal choice, I prefer constant aperture lenses.

Don Parsons
From: jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 80-200/f2.8 for $$$, why?
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:20:05 GMT
Organization: ISC - Bunker Ramo, Spokane, WA

In article <1992Nov19.035957.3597@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen) writes:
>But then, I am no pro. There must be reasons for the popularity of the
>80-200/f2.8 lens. What are they?

9) Durability.  That 50-200 is built like the old 70-210, which is kind of
   rickety.  One good slam and it looks like it would fly apart.  The 80-200L
   is a brick sh*thouse by comparison, and even looks like it could repel 
   muggers with ease (when swung with confidence).  It may have better
   dust- and moisture-proofing too, as befits the true L lens.  (??)

-- 
+----------------+
! 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
+----------------+
			One Design to rule them all; one Design to find them.
			One Design to bring them all and in the darkness bind
			them.  In the land of Mediocrity where the PC's lie.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: News feed??
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 12:24:48 GMT

Can some one check the original 'air sickness' post and see if it
has a dist: header or some such?? It is one a several threads that
pop up from nowhere, very frustrating. Is part of the newsgroup hitting
the bit-bucket??

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jtg0707@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jui Tien)
Subject: Olympus OM1 lens recomm
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:44:46 GMT
Keywords: lens

Hello.
I have an old Olympus om1 I bought a long time ago. During one of my recent
trips to SF, I managed to drop the lens into the bay. Therefore, I am looking
for a suggestion for a replacement lens. I have not been active in photography 
for quite a while, and the new lenses on the markets now do not look familar to me. I appreciate any suggestions on the any of teh lens on the market today thatanyone out on the net may have. I am primarily looking for a good lens for 
general snapshots.(30-200mm?).
I called several mail order places and have bben told the lens for the om1 are 
now very hard to get. Is this true????  
I live in a small town in the midwest, so any purchases I make will most 
probably have to be through the mail.
Thanks in advance.

J.T.
11/16/92
From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikon 20mm f2.8 AF--is it worth the price?
Date: 20 Nov 92 06:58:42 GMT
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
NNTP-Posting-Host: zug.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: ADMSRUBN@VM.UWP.EDU's message of Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:20:15 GMT


In article <168A37552.ADMSRUBN@VM.UWP.EDU> ADMSRUBN@VM.UWP.EDU writes:

   I've seen it but haven't shot with it.  Is the Nikon 20mm f2.8 auto focus lens
   worth the money?  Any comments would be appreciated.  Thanks.

Oh yes!  It is absolutely the most fun I've had with a lens in a long
time.  I've got the 24, 28 and 35 also but I leave them all at home
and just take the 20, 60 macro, and 80-200.

The lens is way sharp by the way and you won't have to use AF.








--

      -- Philip Greenspun

-------------------------------------------------------------
MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
545 Technology Square, Rm 433, Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-8574
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Polaroid back
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:23:40 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


Sheung L Li writes:

> Does anyone have any experiences with NPC backs?  Specifically, I'm 
> interested in the difference between the NPC back and the various 
> incarnations of the Mamiya RZ Polaroid back.


I have an NPC for Nikon and a Brnoica back for my Bronica.

The NPC cost three times as much for the Nikon as did the Bronica, works
differently, but is made better.

I don't think you have much choice in the 35s for backs, but you do in the
medium formats.


eugene kowaluk
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Minox camera?
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:00:16 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Nov16.182817.2418@inmet.camb.inmet.com> tg@inmet.camb.inmet.com (Tom Gearty) writes:
>My uncle gave me a camera that resembles the kind you see spies using
>to take pictures of top secret documents in James Bond movies. I have
>never seen anything like it, and cannot even figure out how to open
>it to load and unload film.
>
Pull the camera open (cocks the shutter), there should be a little
moon shaped depression revealed on the bottom.  Press your fingernail
into it and you should be able to pull the camera apart, and load
the film.   Film comes in little reel-to-reel cassettes.  It takes
9.5mm Minox film.  Most large camera stores will have some.  It
ain't cheap.  Get slow speed film if you don't like grainy pictures,
since the negatives are tiny.

>The camera is only 1 inch wide and 4 inches long--it looks like an elongated,
>all-silver cigarette lighter. There are three dials on the top that appear
>to control film ASA, shutter speed, and distance from subject. An
>interesting aspect is that the shutter speed and ASA dial are connected such
>that rotating one automatically adjusts the other. 
>

The ASA dial is set when you load the film.  Once you close the
camera, the ASA dial is really just a pointer that lines up with
the light meter needle, which is what controls the shutter.  The
lens stays at f:3.5 all the time.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ben_wen@athena.mit.edu (Benson Wen)
Subject: Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<92316.174308IO80861@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
	<1992Nov12.181252.362@odin.corp.sgi.com>
	<1992Nov18.091725.21182@sactoh0.sac.ca.us>
	<1992Nov19.032931.2937@walter.bellcore.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:16:59 GMT

Hmm, I bought one from Adoroma in Sept, with the USA warantee.

Price, incl shipping, $940.
-Ben
--

|| Benson Wen
|| ben_wen@athena.mit.edu
|| queeph@hing.lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: osuch@acadia.Kodak.COM (Bill O'Such)
Subject: Information on Photo CD (ftp site)
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:44:58 GMT


I'm posting this for Paul McAfee (mcafee@islsun.Kodak.COM) in corporate
communications.  I have ftp'd about 18 press releases about Photo CD
to two ftp sites and will post them on rec.photo and alt.cd-rom as
I have time.

The rec.photo site is:
moink.nmsu.edu (129.123.4.58) in rec.photo/photoCD

Please do not respond to me for any comments.  They should be directed
to Paul per his previous posting and in the future they will be
directed to two people that work with Paul.  Watch for a posting of
their addresses.

Bill O'Such
Eastman Kodak Company


DISCLAIMER:
Kodak provides me access to this Net, and are not responsible for
my postings.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hasker@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Hasker)
Subject: Re: _Consumer Reports_ believable on cameras?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 13:43:02 GMT

1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) writes:

>  Do people with real knowledge of
>cameras think _CU_ does a good job?

Looking at the CU articles on cameras is what convinced me that CU
isn't worth the price of a subscription (to me).  I guess they might do
a good job rating laundry soap and the like, but their ratings of
cameras aren't worth much.  The problem is that they don't place much
importance on a number of features that serious photographers would
need or that beginners would probably need a little while down the
road.  It's been a while since I looked, but my impression of CU is
that they would give a very high rating for these low-end AF SLR's
without any control over shutter speed simply because they're cheap.
That *might* be fine for the beginner who's having a hard time just
figuring out which end to look through, but I think most people who are
looking at SLR's will need the extra control.

My suggestion is to look at the December issue of Pop. Photo.  It lists
all the major cameras with complete sets of features.  Note this list
is only of the "flagship" cameras for each line, but you can usually
extrapolate to get the lower-end models by deleting spot-metering,
DOF-preview, mirror lock-up, and other features camera makers have
deemed are important to the pro only.  That, or go talk to a guy at a
good camera store.

_Please_ don't make the mistake of assuming that the Pentax K-1000 is
the "best" because it's the simplest.  You don't have to give up
exposure control just because your camera has auto-exposure.  I think
there are a lot of more modern cameras out there that still leave the
photographer in control of the image, and it's time to lay the K-1000
to rest.

Rob
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: monta@image.mit.edu (Peter Monta)
Subject: Re: The color developer in the E-6 process
Organization: MIT Advanced Television Research Program
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:03:03 GMT

In article <302@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:

> There is a book called "Using Kodak E-6 Chemicals" that Kodak publishes.
> ...

Yes, I've seen mention of this in the Kodak literature list; I'll try
to look it up.  Would be nice to know the reasons behind the various
cryptic tweaks the instructions mention.

> Also, I wanted to point out (hopefully without hurt feelings) that those
> who are using 3-step slide processing chemistry are not using E-6 chemistry.
> Therefore, their comments on E-6 based on their experience with the 3-step
> processes do not apply to real E-6.  Kodak does not even call their own
> Slide Hobby Pac E-6 chemistry, or claim that it works as well.

No problem; in fact I'm finally using the gallon E-6 kit from Kodak, after
also having started out with a 4-bath kit (from Beseler/Tetenal).  The
one thing I did notice (my eyes probably not trained sufficiently :-))
was that Dmax became higher and more neutral with the 7-bath kit.

> ... follow the directions as closely as I can.  I simply do
> not have the kind of equipment (densitometers, color analyzers, Kodak and
> Fuji control strips, etc.) to be able to find out what went wrong.

Second that.  Would be nice to get accurate feedback on how the
processing is, but hey:  things are working.

> (There is no way I'm going back to a formaldehyde-rich stabilizer
> --- yeech!)

The Beseler kit had a formaldehyde-based stabilizer---does
formaldehyde really have a stench?  It may be just me, but I didn't
smell anything in particular.  Or is the "yeech" for the toxicity?

Peter Monta   monta@image.mit.edu
MIT Advanced Television Research Program
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: candids
Date: 19 Nov 1992 20:52:46 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Nov19.154147.14887@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.135438.18725@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> dougb@ecs.comm.mot.com writes:
>>
>>Actually, in my experience as a yearbook photographer, many candids
>>look better when there is little depth of field.  It makes the picture
>>and the subject stand out from the page.  Often times candids taken with
>>a wide angle (35mm is wide angle, not normal) lens will suffer becuase
>>the viewer can't always figure out what the subject was.
>
>Your statement about shooting with a 35mm lens and the subject 
>suffering because the viewer cannot figure what it is, is truly
>dumbfounding to me. The 35mm lens has long been a "standard/normal"
>lens, long before it became fashionable to have the myriad of
>lens available today. The 35mm lens is an excellent lens and the
>pictures that I have shot with it have been very normal and the
>subjects very distinguishable. Even shooting with a 20mm lens,
>the subjects are distinguishable. 

If you have a very busy background, extreme depth of field could
well make it hard to pick out the main subject (one can't always
get ideal backgrounds...or subjects, for that matter).  :}

Especially in black and white shots, using a shallower depth of
field can make the difference between a good shot and one that
is absolutely unusable.

In other words: you're both right.  (More verbosely; it's good to
have the tools to do the job, and even better to use those tools
to their limits.)
















--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
-------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: parsons1@applelink.apple.COM (Don Parsons)
Subject: Re: Nikon 20mm f2.8 AF--is it worth the price?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:46:05 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <168A37552.ADMSRUBN@VM.UWP.EDU>, ADMSRUBN@VM.UWP.EDU writes:
> 
> I've seen it but haven't shot with it.  Is the Nikon 20mm f2.8 auto focus lens
> worth the money?  Any comments would be appreciated.  Thanks.
>  
I recently was faced with the same dilemma. I was considering the 24mm f2.8
and the 20mm f2.8. I borrowed both from friends and asked all sorts of people
that either have or had one or both of them. Most of the people that I talked
to felt that 24mm was not enough. They wanted a wider angle. I came to
the same conclusion and bought the 20mm. I was a little amazed at how much
more you really get. It is about an extra 10 degrees, but it turns out to
include a lot more in that range of wide angle lenses.

Other factors that helped sway me:

* The filter size that the 20mm requires is 62mm. The 24mm takes 52mm filters.
With one exception, all of my lenses take 62mm filters. I felt that the money
I saved on filters would more than make up of the difference in price.

* I knew several people that had purchased the 24mm first, and later switched
to the 20mm (because of the angle of view issue). I only found one person that
had gone the opposite direction.

* I went for months looking through magazines noticing what focal lengths were
used in shots I liked in which a wide angle lens was used. Most of the time,
they were done with 20mm lenses. I did not observe much 24mm usage. A secondary
aspect of this is that I wonder if resale of a 20mm might be easier than for a
24mm.

Since I purchased the lens, I have had a chance to run a couple of rolls though
my camera, while using that lens. I think I am going to be using it FAR more
than I estimated I would. 

Don Parsons
From: reed@nastar.uucp (Reed Wilson)
Subject: Re: Nikon lens + more forsale.
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:32:37 GMT

In article <PHR.92Nov15204413@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>    Nikon MD-11 motor drive.  It fits the FE and (I think, not sure) the
>    FE-2.  Maybe others too.  I never use it, never used it, and it's
>    in the same shape it's in when I bought it (new).  $140/BRO.
>
>Don't use an MD11 on an FE2.  It will fit but the meter batteries will
>go dead if you forget to turn it off.  You need an MD12.
>The MD11 also works with the FM, though.

But considering that in the used market, MD-11s are significantly cheaper
than MD-12s, and that otherwise the drives offer the same speed and 
features, the MD-11s are probably a better value for the financially
handicapped (like myself).  Hopefully, most of us can still remember to
turn the power off when we're finished shooting :-).

Of course, carrying a spare set of batteries is generally a good idea for
any battery-dependant camera.

Regards,

-- 

reed%nastar.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu
Reed C. Wilson
Digital Transmission Systems
From: johnw@tekgen.bv.tek.com (John Winkelman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Olympus IS-1, -2, -3
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:10:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

After seeing one in Japan, I'm interested in buying an Olympus IS-1
(or -2 or -3).  Can someone tell me the difference between the -1 and
-2?  I know the -3, which is just being introduced in this country, 
has a 35-180mm lens, rather than the 35-135mm lens of the -1 and -2.
Are there any other differences worthy of note.

I'd also like to hear likes and dislikes and recommendations from anyone
who has or has used one of the IS-series cameras.

Thanks
Newsgroups: rec.photo