HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Camera Feature Wars - Photo Getting Like Video
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:19:27 GMT
Reply-To: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

I have noted many postings about the merits of Nikon vs. Canon, new
Nikon N90 vs. Nikon N8008S, etc.

I personally went for "old" Nikon (FE2, etc) to Nikon AF (8008, AF zoom,
other lenses, SB-24, 8008S, ...) over the past few years.  that was
a major change from non-AF.  I have looked at a lot of the new stuff
and to me, it represents an improvement but not enough to change over
my whole system again.  I have also note a few net comments on how some
crtitical features (like frame number display in finder) are lacking
from the new N90.

It is obvios to me that all the desired features could be included in
one camera, but are not.  This is getting to be like the situation that
has plagued video enthusiasts for a long time now - you but one camcorder,
and within a few months, a newer, better model is out!!!  Case in point:
sony has since brought out 3 new hi8 models to superced its wonderful
TR81 hi8.  Many are gushing over these new ones.  And there are rports
that one of the replacements for the TR-81 - the TR-101 - may itself
be discontinued!!!

An advantage of photography over video was stability of equipment.
You could often improve your image quality by improving technique or
upgrading film and processing.  The camera makers are trying to capitalize
on the new-better-newer cycle. witha flood of new models and updates.
I believe that the newer models, like the N90, really do sport exciting
new features.  But the cost of constantly updating the equipment may
become a big factor in photography, as it has been in video.


   /|/| /||)|/  /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~   |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
  / | |/ ||\|\  \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_|  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======
From: rbirrell@gssec.bt.co.uk (Rob Birrell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Canon FD to M42 Screw
Date: 19 Nov 92 10:19:26 GMT
Organization: BT, SDDG, Scotland

In article <1992Nov19.095847.14853@gssec.bt.co.uk>, rbirrell@gssec.bt.co.uk (Rob Birrell) writes:
In article <1992Nov17.105704.3865@gssec.bt.co.uk>, rbirrell@gssec.bt.co.uk (Rob Birrell) writes:

>Those of you who read this newsgroup regularly may remember that I posted a request for
>information on Canon bellows/copying equipment. Well I didn't get much response but thanks
>to the two people that did respond. I have purchased a Russian bellows unit with a 42mm screw
>as a *cheap* interim measure. I will be using this with a borrowed Pentax Spotmatic for
>the time-being but would still eventually like to use it with my Canon AE-1 Program. I have
>an adaptor to use 42mm screw mount lenses on the Canon but not vice-versa (for the other end
>of the bellows!!). So the point is -

>does anyone know where I can get an adaptor to allow me to use Canon FD lenses in a 42mm
>mount? I don't care whether it is automatic or not.

>Any information or further ideas would be gratefully received.


Well I've found a supplier who can make such a mount for me for about 20 - 25 Pounds. The 
gentleman I spoke to was very helpfull and knowledgeable and suggested that I'd probably
be better using an enlarger lens. So I'm going to try for that and go with a 39mm screw to
42mm screw adaptor for 4 Pounds 75 Pence. If anyone is interested the company's name is

	SRB Film Service, 286 Leagrave Road, Luton, Bedfordshire, UK, LU3 1RB
	Tel. 0582 572471,	Fax. 0582 572535
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Red Eye, Yellow Eye - why?
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:52:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov16.035248.17493
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <7915@skye.ed.ac.uk> jkk@aiai.uucp (John Kingston) writes:
>Can anyone answer the following:
>Now I know that "red-eye" is caused by reflections from the retina. What I
>want to know is, why did the little girl have one "red" eye and one "yellow"
>eye ? I've never heard of this phenomenon. As far as I can see, her eye pupil
>looks like a yellow billiard ball - approximately the colour of yellow that
>John Kingston,                               | 
>Knowledge Engineering Methods Group,         | The heart of the problem

	Well, perhaps:
1) The different angles of the two eyes caused one eye to show reflections,
	not of the red area of the retina but of soem other area inside
	the eye (you were close up?  She has a weak eye?)
2) Eye problem or disease
3) Photofinisher going through great trouble to have fun at your expense
4) defect in paper of film
5) Friend's daughter is an alien
-Case
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: philiph@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: MINEX cameras;  yes: minEx.  Whaddya know?
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:35:05 GMT

I have recently seen a little MINEX camera.  That's no mistake: MINEX, 
with an E.  It is very small, with no adjustments possible - just a 
simple shutter mechanism.  It was made in Japan and seems to use 9.5 
mm film on reels, not in a cartridge.
	It  is listed neither in McKeowan's nor Hove.  Does anyone 
know anything about them - vintage, rarity, lens quality (haha)?
				-Philip Hiscock
philiph@kean.ucs.mun.ca
From: Jimmy.Tung@dartmouth.edu (Jimmy Tung)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Idiot Mistakes
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:07:19 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Can't hurt to try.  Don't worry about strange processing, if you
actually exposed anything through opening the camera back, it's way
past recoverable, although you may have savagable negative somewhere. 
They'll develop OK, Fates willing.

BTW, you wouldn't happen to have a Canon EOS would you?  The earlier
models wound the film *into* the canister as you took pics, so opening
the back only ruins (previously :-)) unexposed film.
From: johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Resolution of Lens ???
Date: 20 Nov 1992 02:08:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdlg10.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov20.003420.15573@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov19.214725.7999@craycos.com>, sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
|> >...... 
|> > Maybe I don't understand how this all works, but aren't the resolutions
|> > of the lens, film, and system (lens *and* film) related in this way:
|> > 
|> > 	1/Rs = 1/Rl + 1/Rf

     From one of the Kodak publications (B&W films ?) I recall that it's
     something like 1/film^ + 1/lens^2 = 1/image^2 ; I think it's correct
     as you're supposed to get about 70 lp/mm from a film/lens at 100 lp/mm.   

|>                        ............ yet modern photography had GREAT
|> trouble with the best lenses available. If you look at most of their
|> tests lenses tended to top out at about only 70 lp/mm.. 

   In Outdoor Photo. George Lepp mentioned that the highest numbers
   that he found on Tech Pan were about 120 lp/mm to 130 lp/mm from
   the tests on the Nikon and Canon 55mm and 50mm macros. He also
   found that Modern Photo's numbers were kind of low. I've worn 
   out one of Modern's buying guides trying to make sense of some
   of tests and I found that there wasn't too much correlation between
   the numbers and what I thought was the best indicator of lens
   quality; 'well defined detail'. Their qualitative ratings were
   otherwise confusing as an excellent zoom might be an almost average
   normal lens. The highest numbers in the buying guide that I recall
   were from the Nikon 35mm f1.4 at about 87 lp/mm, although in one
   of their last issues I think that they stated that some of the
   90mm to 105mm macros tested around 100 lp/mm.              

|> A couple of other points come to mind. (1) At the resolution limit the
|> image of the test target is no longer high contrast (the aerial image
|> that is). The resolving power of Tech Pan is only 125 lp/mm for low
|> contrast targets (usually 1:1.6?). Thus as you approach the resolving
|> limit of the lens, the resolving power of the film itself drops also.
|> Thus if the lens JUST resolved 400 lp/mm in a low contrast aerial
|> image, 125 lp/mm from the film would give only 95lp/mm on the negative.

   Good point. I recall an ad (with no data to back it up) that stated
   that the resolution of the new Leica 105mm apo-macro exceeded the 
   resolving power of Tech Pan. It or the Nikon 105 apo process lens 
   might be the tools you need to test your theory as you should be
   able to record a high value that drops off quickly as you stop down. 

   John Ongtooguk (johno@sdd.hp.com)          
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: prodger@leland.Stanford.EDU (phillip prodger)
Subject: Re: Major advances in camera technology (was Re: Camera Feature Wars - Photo Getting Like Video)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 17:45:12 GMT

In article <1epaliINN69m@talon.UCS.ORST.EDU> monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson) writes:
>
> To address the question of why most major technologies were developed in
> the 50's and 60's:
>  This observation results from ignoring developments outside that time
>  frame.
>  
>  As the original list indicated, important innovations came along
>  in the 30' and 40's. The original list excluded all innovations prior to
>  1930. That ignores some *very* important advances in photography
>  such as development of the mechanically timed shutter, which allowed
>  for reasonably accurate exposures under 1 second, and the development
>  of the roll film camera which gave people the freedom to take a series of
>  pictures without fumbling with bulky film holders.
>
>  I believe the 70's and 80's have seen real advances in lens technology
>  (better coatings, wide range of high quality zoom lenses, low dispersion
>  elements for elimination of most chromatic aberration....)
>  The incorporation of modern electronics in cameras is a general category
>  of innovation that includes a variety of specific
>  innovations such as TTL flash control,
>  electronically timed shutter, programmed exposure automation,
>  auto focus and matrix metering.

I was fascinated to see that all of the 'innovations' in this thread are from
this _century_, let alone the 50's and 60's.  What of the calotype,
collodion, plastic negatives, reasonably fast lenses & papers etc. etc. etc...
hey, we owe a lot more to these than we do TTL flash.

>  These are all (relatively) recent innovations which have greatly enhanced
>  photographer's capabilities.

Well said.  I can't help thinking that in rec.photo we get carried away with
technology.  An innovation is not a breakthrough--incredible pictures were
being made 150 years ago.  And while innovations may have enhanced our
capabilities, they certainly haven't changed our capabilities much, at least
in an artistic sense.  Think of the great photographers who achieved beauty,
clarity, even mastery with 'primitive' equipment.

In my case, I can't help thinking modern technology has done nothing to
improve my lame photos.





Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN P. GLORIA)
Subject: Re: Picture matting/framing
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 06:03:25 GMT

In article <PHILG.92Nov23180212@zug.ai.mit.edu> philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu writes:
>
>Real fine art photographs are seldom mounted at all.  You'll see them
>taped to the back of the window mat along the top edge.  The rest is
>left free for wrinkling and thermal expansion.
>
>Annie Liebowitz's museum show was done this way.  I do my pictures
>this way and although it would be nice if they were flatter, I just
>look at them straight-on.
>
You mean there is "NON" real fine art? :-) Seriously, what
do you base your facts on? Is this throughout the country 
or personal perference by artist?
>


-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
From: 6500rick@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Richard J. Bessey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Idiot Mistakes
Date: 15 Nov 92 07:40:37 GMT
Distribution: rec

Well, I am afraid I am setting myself up here for something.
I don't know how it happened, but it did.  It just happened.
I opened the back of the camera exposing the pictures I had 
already taken.  (I was using TMax 400, B&W).

I have done this before (I can't believe I am saying this) with
Ektar 1000 color and my pictures actually came out.

Now here's my question.  I am going to develop the film tomorrow
hoping to find something.  (Ok, so that wasn't a question.)  
Should I do anything different to increase my chances of 
getting an image, perhaps in the pictures that were coiled up
on the right?  (More agitation, maybe?  Different mix of developer?) 

If you have any suggestions, mail or post as soon as you can.

Thanks in advance (and after too!).

Rick  

I was stupid for a minute, but I am better now, thanks.


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
	<1992Nov9.192006.8736@odin.corp.sgi.com>
	<1992Nov17.124634.689@sys.sweden.dg.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:33:38 GMT

robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:

> I use to wash the film for a substantially longer time than the 6 minutes
> the instructions says -- around 20 or 30 minutes, after which I end the
> processing with the stabiliser before hanging the films up to dry. Six
> minutes sounds just too short for me who is accustomed to rinse my b&w
> films at least 30 minutes and often as much as 60 minutes.

Are fixing by-products at all harmful to color dyes?  I think I
understand the concern for black-and-white materials, since the silver
image is susceptible to chemical attack, but unless the dyes have
similar chemistry, they should be okay.

So might six minutes even be too long?  (I always follow the suggested
wash time on the E-6 sheet, but I'd be curious about what bad things
would happen if it were reduced to near-zero.)

Peter Monta   monta@image.mit.edu
MIT Advanced Television Research Program
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tone@leland.Stanford.EDU (Tony Lin)
Subject: Should I sell my Maxxum?
Keywords: maxxum,9000,autofocus,sale,sell,cookiemonster
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 06:28:54 GMT

Hi everyone!  I'm considering selling my camera outfit because I haven't
used it much in the past two years and it looks like I'll be too busy in
the future to make full use of it again.   I got it in 1988 to do some
photojournalism work and have kept it in very good shape. 

Minolta Maxxum 9000  (autofocus, 1/4000 shutter, 1/250 flash sync, can
   attach drives or winders, data backs, depth of field preview,
   shutter/aperture/program/manual priority modes, internal and external
   data readouts, etc. this is a "professional"  camera.  If you want a toy
   please get something else.)
Maxxum 4000AF flash  (power auto zoom, TTL or manual modes, built in IR focus,
   assist, ISO 100 GN 148 ft., 360 degrees swivel, bounce, AC adapter, lit
   display that shows range/power settings, etc.) 
Minolta AF 28-85 f3.5-f4.5 (will macro focus)
Minolta AF 50mm f1.4 fast lens
Sigma AF 75-200mm zoom (constant f4)
RC-1000 remote shutter release cord
Cokin filters (circ. polarizing,star,graduated blue, grad. orange, N.D.)
Tamrac strechy type of strap
Owners manuals

If you're interested, email me at:   tone@leland.stanford.edu
If you don't think I should sell it and should keep it for some reason
also email me.  I'm trying to think of reasons why I shouldn't sell it.

						- Tony
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Rebel vs. Rebel II (2)
Date: 20 Nov 92 02:08:06 GMT

In <1992Nov20.005528.4881@cs.cornell.edu> jain@cs.cornell.edu (Neel K. Jain) writes:

>In article <7176@news.duke.edu> yavor@acpub.duke.edu (Yavor B. Parashkevov) writes:
><deleted>
>>I can't remember off the top of my head what the differences are, but
>>I think it has 1/2000 shutter speed (Rebel has 1/1000) but I may be
>>wrong on this. What I am sure about, however, is that Rebel II has a
>>*built-in flash*. So, if someone is trying to sell you over the phone
><deleted>

>No it doesn't! The Rebel IIs has a flash, the Rebel II doesn't. I
>bought my Rebel II in July and it has (in addition to the 1/2000
>shutter speed) a Soft Focus mode, a musical Self-timer and (Canon
>claims) faster autofocus. There's a sports PIC mode. which the earlier
>Rebel may or may not have.

Another feature of the Rebel II's is the quieter film drive, with
technology borrowed from the Elan.

>I have yet to take a picture at 1/2000 or use the Soft Focus mode. My
>musical self timer is set to the regular beep option.

Actually, I can see the soft focus mode being useful.  Diffusion filters
can be pretty expensive.  The musical beep, on the other hand...

>Your mileage may vary.

>Neel Jain

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: smustopo@nyx.cs.du.edu (sofjan mustopoh)
Subject: Mirror cleaning (Was Canon RT mirror)
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: Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:14:41 GMT


  About canon rt mirror has to be sent to Canon to be cleaned.
 A word of caution here " DON'T CLEANED YOUR MIRROR" 
 you can easily scratch your mirror. Mirror is very delicate
 a mild blow of air are sufficient to remove the dust.
 j
   Once my friend leaved a finger print in my mirror. i try to
 cleaned it. the result. mirror are cleaned but the view finder are 
 a tad darker and grainier. i'would never cleaned my mirror 
aain . beside a bit of dust in mirror won't effect the picture
 since the mirror would come up during the exposure.
 with the exception of Canon RT. and cases where the mirror is
 really dirty that it alter the metering .

  Sofjan Mustopoh
From: mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Concert Film Results.
Date: 24 Nov 92 03:24:13 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service


It sounds like the authors of both concert postings evaluated their
results based on mini-lab prints. The yellow cast discribe by the
second poster is due to the tungsten light and can easily be
corrected for in printing--but probably not by mini-labs. In the
case of the poor results with Fuji Super HG 400, it is possible
that the mini-lab had the right color compensation for Kodak Gold
Plus 400 but not for the Fuji

In short, you can't really evaluate a given film if you depend on
mini-lab prints; you are really evaluating a film-lighting-Mini-lab
combination.
-- 
Michael Volow, Psychiatry, Durham VA Med Center, Durham NC 27712
919 286 0411 Ext 6933               mvolo@uncecs.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: candids
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:29:53 GMT


It's worth noting that a really wide angle lens (say 20mm or less) has
such a wide coverage that you can take pictures of people while pointing
the camera in what (to them) seems like a completly different direction.
You can even do so from a few feet in front of them. You do have to be a
little careful about the "distortions" that wide angle lenses can give
though.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Toronto Developers
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Keywords: I was asked to post this
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Distribution: ont
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:47:08 GMT



The Nov. '92 issue of Photo Life has an article called "Best Photo Labs
in Canada."  Here's the list of those in the Toronto area:

BGM Colour Lab
497 King St. E.
947-1325

Colour Prints Corp.
119 Vanderhoof Ave.
421-4136

D-Max Photographic Studio Labs
489 Queen St. W.
867-8745

Gallery Colour Lab
622 Richmond St. W.
367-9770

Steichenlab
500 Richmond St. E.
366-8745

Toronto Black & White Photo Lab
433 Queen St. E.
861-0258


Cheers,

    __o     Brad Booth              | "If somebody feels really good
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  about who they are, they don't
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  feel threatened by what other
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |  people are." - Dr. M. Rubenstein
From: dls@ce.Berkeley.EDU (David L. Steere)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Prints from slides (suggestions needed)
Date: 16 Nov 1992 18:26:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: berk
NNTP-Posting-Host: ce.berkeley.edu


I'm about to put together a photo album of the life and times a pretty
interesting guy, ME!  In so doing, I've got hundreds of color 35 mm slides
which I want to have printed to a 3.5x5 or 4x6 size, without losing much
in the way of sharpness.  Can anyone recommend someone in the Bay Area
(or outside of it, if necessary for cost/performance reasons) to whom I
can entrust this critical mission?  Approximate cost figures would be
nice, if available.

Of course, I'm being facetious about the critical nature, but my limited
experience with this process has resulted in blurry prints, which were
the result of the printing, not the original photography.  

Many thanks for whatever ideas or advice might be forthcoming.
From: rbs@cyclops.micr.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Sisk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Mail Order Question (Need Help)
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:57:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia
Originator: rbs@cyclops.micr.Virginia.EDU


Howdy!

	I am thinking about buying a new camera.  A friend suggested
	that I consider ordering from either 47st. Photo or Marine
	Park Camera & Video.  Both of these mail stores are listed 
	in Popular Photography and both participate in the "Check
	Rated" program.  Has anyone out there in Net Land ever
	ordered from one of these companies?  How about any other
	mail order photography companies?  Advice good or bad
	is welcome.  Please reply via email.

Thanks,

Bob
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert B. Sisk  PhD			Internet: rbs@virginia.edu
NAR #53448				UUCP:     uunet!virginia!rbs
TRIPOLI #1583                           CIS:      71501.1651@CompuServe.COM
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: patrice@cs.concordia.ca (Patrice Scattolin)
Subject: Re: Nikon Photo Contest
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:46:20 GMT

In article <BxoJtu.H2H@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jromao@bragg.bio.purdue.edu writes:
>The new book just came out. I couldn't believe it: 
  
   Does anyone know when the winner are notified? We sent one picture in early
  october and would like to submit it magasines. Since you are disqualified
  if you won other contest with the picture we would like to know as soon
  as possible. The rules were not that specific about this. 
  
  Thanks
  
  Patrice 
-- 
Patrice Scattolin
					patrice@cs.concordia.ca
Concordia University			Montreal, Canada
"I am so far north that Santa lives two blocks from me"
Newsgroups: rec.photo