HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: What is the difference among APO, USM, etc lenses?
Date: 4 Oct 92 06:44:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: e40-008-.TJWU.92Oct4024109
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

>In article <shnz=!k@rpi.edu> hyunj@sage4c.its.rpi.edu (John Hyun) writes:
>
>  What is the difference among APO, USM, etc lenses?
>  I am not too familiar with this vocabulary and the
>  technicalities behind it. If someone could respond,
>  please do so.  Thanks.

APO means that the lens is apochromatic, i.e. the lens causes the primary
colors to focus in the same plane.
USM stands for UltraSonic Motor and is used as the focusing motor in
some of Canon's EF lenses.  They focus very quickly and very quietly.
I have two of them myself and have been quite impressed with their
performance.

>
>  --Hyunj@rpi.edu

Thomas Wu
Internet:  tjwu@athena.mit.edu
From: huw@castle.ed.ac.uk (H G J Evans)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: ilford delta
Keywords: bw
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:21:55 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <plak.717630004@chico.phil.ruu.nl> plak@phil.ruu.nl (Martijn Plak) writes:
>Hi all!
>
>I have just used ilford delta b/w films for the first time, and have a question:
>
>does anyone know what is so different about this films, compared to hp5?
>


My information is that they are no good for push processing. Whether
Delta_400 is better than HP5 at the nominal speed I couldn't say, but if
it isn't, I can't see any reason for its existence. I saw recently a
comparison test on Delta_100, T-max_100 and one other (I forget which),
and the Delta was much more contrasty than the other two. It looked nice
on the sample print that was shown, but I'm not sure I would like it in
every situation.

>have a good day!

Thanks, I'll do that! 8-)

Huw.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lswab@x400gate.bnr.ca (Lyndon Swab)
Subject: Re: EOS - weatherproof?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.,
Distribution: rec.photo
Date: 05 Oct 92 22:47:56 GMT

>>>>> On 3 Oct 92 12:20:47 GMT, hrvoje@castle.ed.ac.uk (H Hecimovic) said:
  hrvoje> Bcc: hrvoje@castle



  hrvoje> Hi, does anybody has any EXPERIENCE using EOS (I have Rebel) in bad
  hrvoje> weather - fog, drizzle, shower?

  hrvoje> Hrvoje

I've used an EOS 650 in -25 degree (C) weather, fog, drizzle, and
full-out rain (only for a few minutes in the rain).  No problems at
all.  I wouldn't want to leave it in the rain for long though.  I
suspect that the electronic components are sealed quite well.

You may have different luck with a Rebel.  
--
Lyndon Swab     lswab@bnr.ca, (613) 763-7165, ESN 393-7165
From: tab62@isuvax.iastate.edu (   )
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: More than 37 exposures/roll with 8008s?
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:57:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Sep30.205712.26248
Reply-To: tab62@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

In article <1992Oct1.041141.1@cc.curtin.edu.au>, zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
>In article <3830318@hpldsla.sid.hp.com>, tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich) writes:
>> mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc Sarrel) writes:
>> 
>> [deletions...]
>> 
>>> Also, what's a good solution to the "I have 37 exposures and my neg
>>> file holds 35 exposures and I can only fit 35 exposures on an 8x10
>>> proofsheet anyway" problem.
>> 
>> Your problem restated: "What's so sacred about 36 frames anyway?"
>> 
>Get a Proofing frame that only prints one edge. You can fit 40 exps on an 8x10.
>The bad news is the company that made them hase been out of bussiness 15 or so
>years. Anyone interested in the plans? BTW, you don't have to cut your negs.

I saw a lab which does all 35mm negatives "proofing"(not sure it is proofing or
not
on a strip of paper same
size as the negatives themselves.  
>
>~Paul
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Chong Siak     Iowa State University  Ames  Iowa   tab62@isuvax.iastate.edu                      
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: wert@yorktown.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Jerry Van Wert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Fuji & Kodak slide differences
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:43:02 GMT


I have been told, and I have observed this to some extent, that
the Kodachrome colors are much more stable than Ektachromes over
time (Ektachromes shifting towards blue)... I'd like to know if
this stability problem is a characteristic of E-6 or just the 
Ektachrome line.

Recently, I've started using Fujichrome 50 and Velvia 50 with pleasing
results so far;  processing is done at a local custom lab at a good price.
I am worried about thier life span though.  Can anyone comment on how long
these should last under reasonable care?

Normally I use Kodachrome 64 for my color slide needs and give them
to Kodalux (Qualex?) for processiong.  It may just be my misperception
but their quality control seems rather variable.  Is there another
place which can do K-14?  I really like Kodachrome but I seem to be
getting inconsistant results.


Thanks in advance for any comments,

Jerry Van Wert
wert@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hisashi@lpd.sj.nec.com (Hisashi Naganuma)
Subject: Leica 21/2.8 FOR SALE
Keywords: Leica sale super-wide
Organization: NEC Technologies. San Jose.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:49:17 GMT

Three years ago I purchased 21/2.8 for Leica-M in Japan.  I hardly used it
because I prefer 50mm much more than super-wide and it is in perfect condition.

I would like to sell the following set.

	Elmarit-M 21mm/F2.8 blk mint	1
	21mm viewfinder blk		1
	60mm UV filter MARUMI		1
	60mm Yellow filter KENKO	1
	60mm ORANGE filter KENKO	1

	Price of the set		$1,400

If any interest or question, please mail me at hisashi@lpd.sj.nec.com
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Freezing Film
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:18:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Oct6.171855.15813
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <PHR.92Oct5164155@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>
>The part about not re-freezing is new and interesting to me.  Can
>anyone supply an explanation?  I've regularly been taking several
>rolls out of the freezer, taking them somewhere to shoot, then putting
>any unshot rolls left over back into the freezer for next time.  This
>has never caused me any problems that I've noticed.

Well, supposedly, if you open the canister, you will get moisture inside the
film cassette from condensation.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu)
Subject: Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 vs. Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:57:09 GMT

I'm looking for a good wide-angle lens that is also suitable for
indoor photography, and I'm trying to decide between these two lenses
right now.  The Canon lens is $220 and the Sigma lens is $140.
Is the Canon worth the extra cost?  The Sigma lens seems to have
outstanding close-focusing capabilities.  If anyone has experience
with either or both of these (or has a better idea for a lens),
please e-mail or post.  Thanks.

Thomas Wu
Internet:  tjwu@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson)
Subject: Re: Processing 8mm film in the bathtub
Organization: Mendelson Computer Consulting
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 17:08:55 GMT

fontana@melon.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Fontana) writes:

>Just curious if anyone's tried this or has comments.  With professional
>8mm processing costing only about $2.40, it's really not worth it...
>but maybe for fun...
>
>
>PS- Someone offered to sell me a Morse tank processor and I lost the address.
>    If you're out there, please get in touch.


Arkay (a photographic wholesaler) used to carry these, I beleive they still
do. Call a few stores in your area and ask if they buy anthing from them.
If they do ask them to ask their salesman.

Geoff.
-- 
Copyright (C) 1992, Geoffrey S. Mendelson.              All Rights Reserved.
Except for usenet followups, may not be reproduced without permsission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  Computer Software Consulting    |                   |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey S. Mendelson        Ask me about UNIX(tm) based imaging systems.
geoffrey@mendelson.com            
(215) 242-8712                             
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: weld@chilliwack.cs.washington.edu (Daniel S. Weld)
Subject:        Canon EOS A2
Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science & Eng.
Date: 2 Oct 92 08:01:22

If anyone has the press release for Canon's new EOS A2
or has info / has seen one / knows delivery or price
please forward it.  Thanks.

    Daniel Weld
    Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering
    Mail Stop FR-35                            Internet: weld@cs.washington.edu
    University of Washington                   Phone:    (206) 543-9196
    Seattle, WA 98195                          Fax:      (206) 543-2969
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: How do you pronounce Leica? [Actually, Nikon]
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 14:23:13 GMT

In article <SCHOOLER.92Oct1174052@turing.apollo.hp.com> schooler@apollo.hp.com (Richard Schooler) writes:
>
>  This reminds me of my pet peeve: how does one pronounce 'Nikon'?  My
>formative camera years were spent in Tokyo, and there I learned to say
>Nee-kon, which is consistent with everything I know about the Japanese
>language, not to mention that Nikon is a contraction of Nippon Kogaku.
>Many westerners seem to think it is Nie-kon, however, which the
>Japanese would tend to romanize as Naikon, I believe.

I dunno about "many Westerners".  When I lived in Australia, we said 
"Nick-Kon", but Americans seem to insist on pronouncing it "Ny-Kon".
A coupla hundred million Americans have difficulty getting used to 
the idea that the rest of the world has it right and the Americans 
have it all wrong - even when this is true.

(P.S. How does one pronounce Celica, as in Toyota?  I think that 
this is another American peculiarity.)

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
From: axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Postprocessing help!
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:05:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: kodak.1992Oct1.130516.11706
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY

In article <69443@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt4609c@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Coffeen) writes:
>
> I recently took some pictures at a concert with VERY low light using a cheap
>automatic camera with 200 speed film. OK, I agree, the set-up stinks but I had
>no choice. Not surprisingly, none of them came out, however you can see a few
>specks here and there on the negative. My question is, is there ANYWAY to take
>the negatives back to the lab and get them to come out? I know very little
>about the processing techniques but is it pretty much over or what? Help!
>

It all depends on how badly they're underexposed, relative to what part of 
the scene you're interested in reproducing.  Images at concerts of this 
type are typically intended to be very "contrastly" with most everything
black, except for the performers illuminated with spotlights, etc...
It's hard to comment on the degree of underexposer based on your description, 
but if there are "specks here and there on the negative" a more professional
lab might be able to custom print a better rendition.  (how much can you 
see in the original prints?  Anything?)

Another choice might be  (yes, you guessed it :-)) Photo CD.
In the normal transfer operation, the system provides a degree of underexposure
tonescale correction.  Depending on how bad they are, this might allow you 
to make a decent digital print from a few of the scenes.  Of course, there's 
no free lunch.  Correcting for the underexposure will "boost" the apparent 
grain/noise in the image (and/or map to density levels that make it more 
visible).  Since your original film is Gold200, the grain might not be too 
bad, but without seeing the negatives I really can't say.  The underexposure 
correction in Photo CD is fairly mild, and is really geared toward images 
which are only a few stops under.  It sounds like your negatives are quite 
a bit worse, but I'd give it a try.  If they are too far gone, the Photo CD
system will probably flag it as "unprintable" and you won't have to pay for it.


>Scott Coffeen
>gt4609c@prism.gatech.edu
>.

Eastmanly,
mike

>
>-- 
>    --= Scott Coffeen  -  Georgia Tech  -  gt4609c@prism.gatech.edu ==-

-- 
Mike Axman  
CD-Imaging Advanced Development
Eastman Kodak Company
axman@kodak.com


DISCLAIMER:
Kodak gives me this Net access for free, but they aren't 
responsible for my postings.
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Experiences with long zoom point and shoots?
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:51:10 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Those of you who have bought for yourself or others a point and shoot
camera that zooms to at least 105mm, have you been happy with the
purchase? Why or why not?

If you have tales to tell of boxes that zoom to 90mm, I would like
to hear about those, too, even though I am leaning towards the longer
lenses.
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: nichols@offa.cs.odu.edu (teresa nichols)
Subject: Re: When in B&W film too old?
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
	<1992Oct3.031140.15941@emr1.emr.ca>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:54:02 GMT


Yeah, I wouldn't mind some of the Pan X

Teresa
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: brucer@oz.plymouth.edu (Bruce Ritchie)
Subject: Re: DEVELOPING ONLY
Keywords: DEVELOPING ONLY
Reply-To: brucer@oz.plymouth.edu (Bruce Ritchie)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 22:51:52 GMT

>Can anyone post the address of any processing lab which offers developing of
>films. 
>I usually photograph the same subject with multiple settings of exposures and
>do not want to get prints of every negative.
>Thanks.
>Qawi
	Every photo shop I've ever worked at offered this service, IF
you ask for it! It's quite standard, and I'd think even your local
1-hour could handle it. However, be aware that whe you go to get
prints after-the-fact they'll cost more than if you get them at the
time of processing. 

	brucer

-- 

	  "I hate television. I hate it as much as peanuts.
		  But I can't stop eating peanuts."
				Orson Wells
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: alix@indetech.com (Alexandria North)
Subject: Re: How to make a good ghost illusion?
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:39:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.041329.1418@netcom.com> sevenup@netcom.com (Mark W. 
Moorcroft) writes:
>
>Has anyone tried any strobe effects with the same idea as this thread
>using an SB-24 or ??
>
>??  --  :-)   --  ??
>

Just before I saw the thread, I had tried out a series of similar strobe 
effects, but I won't be developing my film until next Thursday.

I first tried out the SB-24's stroboscopic effects, 8 flashes/1 second.
Then I did a multiple exposure like this:

	Scene: Outside, night, no significant light other than the SB-24.
	I had one person (a man in a bathrobe) stand to the far right 
	of the frame. He stayed still the entire time.
	I had a woman, nude, in a feathered mask and holding transparent
	black fabric (with red metallic threads) pose in various ghost 
	like positions around the frame.
	I did a multiple exposure, three exposures, and fired the flash
	once each time.

While I think I had a good idea, I made a mistake and didn't reset the 
SB-24 from 1/16 power to something like 1/4. I did each of the three 
exposures at 4 seconds, with the flash firing once during the 4 secs.
Because this wasn't very scientific, I don't have a whole lot of hope, 
but I'll find out how this works when I develop the film next Thursday 
(and I'll let you know then).

Alexandria

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Babies, babies, babies. Why did God make so many babies?
 But no, God didn't make them. Stupid people made them."
      -- Margaret Mitchell, Gone With The Wind
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman)
Subject: Re: Ektar vs. Gold
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:48:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.021234.16137@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, lmitchel@nyx.cs.du.edu (lloyd mitchell) writes:
>I regularly shoot pictures of my computer screen (I do alot of fractal
>images) and I have used Ektar 25 almost exclusively.  This is because I use
>a tripod and long exposures to smear the screen refreshing so I figured that
>I should use a slow speed/fine grained film.  Also, I had heard/read that
>the color saturation of Ektar was much better than Gold's.  When I took my
>latest roll in to be processed, the lab manager (gently) chastised me for
>using Ektar instead of Gold.  His impression was that Kodak had gambled (&
>lost) with a new emulsion, and was hyping it to death to try to cut their
>losses.  He also stated that Gold is *much* easier to print & has better colors.
>It's cheaper, and more readily available, too.
>
>So, my question is, is Gold 100 any better or worse than Ektar 25?  Also, what
>would be the best film for shooting computer screens with a 35mm camera?
>

I think the manager of this lab has a vacuum where his brain should be.
Ektar 25 wasn't a "lost gamble", since it's existence doesn't preclude 
the existence of all the other Gold films.  If you want the sharpest, 
most fine-grain color negative film available, you shoot Ektar 25.
(flames from Fuji lovers cheerfully ignored :-))
In terms of signal/noise ratio, Ektar 25 will be much better.  However, when 
you talk about "better color saturation", etc... it's all relative.
Ektar has DIFFERENT color saturation, color contrast, and neutral contrast; 
whether it's "better" or "worse" than Gold depends on too many other factors, 
not the least of which is making sure you don't underexpose it.

I would suspect that in this application, the differences between Ektar 25 
and Gold 100 would be minimal.  However, since noise power is additive, the
finer grain of the Ektar should always be measureably better, but given the 
extensive "phosphor" noise of the screen, it may not be discernably different
with your magnifications, etc...

By the way, who was this lab manager?  I want to take him off my Christmas list.


>Thanks,
>Kerry Mitchell

-- 
Mike Axman  
CD-Imaging Advanced Development
Eastman Kodak Company
axman@kodak.com


DISCLAIMER:
Kodak gives me this Net access for free, but they aren't 
responsible for my postings.
From: gt4609c@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Coffeen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Postprocessing help!
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:45:54 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


 I recently took some pictures at a concert with VERY low light using a cheap
automatic camera with 200 speed film. OK, I agree, the set-up stinks but I had
no choice. Not surprisingly, none of them came out, however you can see a few
specks here and there on the negative. My question is, is there ANYWAY to take
the negatives back to the lab and get them to come out? I know very little
about the processing techniques but is it pretty much over or what? Help!

Scott Coffeen
gt4609c@prism.gatech.edu
.

-- 
    --= Scott Coffeen  -  Georgia Tech  -  gt4609c@prism.gatech.edu ==-
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: smustopo@nyx.cs.du.edu (sofjan mustopoh)
Subject: Re: How do you pronounce Leica? [Actually, Nikon]
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 03:29:10 GMT

In article <13377@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
writes:
>
>>  This reminds me of my pet peeve: how does one pronounce 'Nikon'?  My
>>formative camera years were spent in Tokyo, and there I learned to say
>>Nee-kon, which is consistent with everything I know about the Japanese
>>language, not to mention that Nikon is a contraction of Nippon Kogaku.
>>Many westerners seem to think it is Nie-kon, however, which the
>>Japanese would tend to romanize as Naikon, I believe.
>
>	But then we'd have to pronounce "Minolta" as "Meen-a-root-a!"
>	Now, how would we pronounce "Olympus?" ;-)
>		Dave


   Just plain   Meenoltaa  ""  :)
                O as in "oh" Leem Pus as in "pussy cat "
                Oleempus
From: thull@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Scott Thull)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Poloraid back for 35mm SLR?
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:18:44 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

RE: Polaroid Back for 35mm

   A company called NPC makes them for several Nikon models as well as
custom versions for other models/brands.  They are EXPENSIVE by 35mm
terms (~$600-$900) but that is still far cheaper than a medium formant
system.  The custom versions are even more expensive.

   I've never used one of these, so I'd probably try to rent one first
to make sure you'd be happy with the results and image size.

   NPC also makes polaroid backs for medium formant cameras so most mail 
order companies that handle medium formant equipment should be able to 
order the 35mm versions.  

   Calumet Photo in Chicago has the Nikon versions in their catalog.  I
think their number is 1-800-CALUMET.

Hope this helps.

Scott Thull
thull@fc.hp.com
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: former nikon ownerREAD/NEW/FOLLOWUP
Date: 5 Oct 1992 20:26:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Oct6.015525.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
>> 
>Just a vapid thought, no one seems to have told Canon's maketriods that 'elan'
>is a synonym for 'flair'. :-)

Which would only be a problem for those who can't differentiate between "flair"
and "flare".

On second though, that might be a fairly large group.  :}




--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Don't Buy From Smile Photo
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:25:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvaac.1992Sep29.182527.16470
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

swgto@cs.iastate.edu (Swagato Basumallick) writes:
: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: 
: >Now, if Slime Photo had up and sent you a filter, without you ordering
:          ^^^^^^^^^^^
: >anything from them, then you would be free to keep and use the filter
: >without charge. In this case, it would be considered a gift to you.
: 
: >Bill
: 
: 
: Intentional, or just a typo ?
: 
: Just Curious.

Now, if I stated that it was intentional, then they might sue me for
libel - right? 

You decide yourself about the firm. What I have read, there is no way
that I would deal with the business.

Bill