HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: AF speeds
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:10:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.204347.3490@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.151239.20192@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>>
>>Again, you are heading in the right direction. Please
>>do take my reply as a flame. Have a GREAT weekend!
>
>I like that, succinct and to the point....:-)
>
>Gary
>
>-- 
>-----
>Gary Snow
>uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu

"Again, you are heading in the right direction. Please
do take my reply as a flame. Have a GREAT weekend!"

Oops! I meant to type NOT as in "Please do NOT take my reply
as a flame."                            ^^^^^

Anyways, I'm glad you enjoyed it. :-)
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lkoh@oak.math.ucla.edu (Liang Koh)
Subject: slide projector for sale
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 01:20:27 GMT


I have a kodak medalist causorel projector which I bought less than half a 
year and hardly used. I like to sell it away because I am moving. Please 
email me and make an offer if you are interested. I am leaving on 5Sep,
so, please email me fast if you are interested. 
Xref: sparky rec.photo:15161 alt.cd-rom:2860 gnu.misc.discuss:2813 misc.int-property:900
From: axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:12:17 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY

In article <17mgosINNm2j@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>
>How does licensing guarantee that the licensee is competent?  Lots of
>high-quality software is written on tiny budgets, and lots of crap is
>written by $billion companies.  Once someone pays their license fee you
>don't have any control over the quality of the resulting product, do you?
>
>In fact, what if the licensee takes the funds for purchasing the license
>from his QA budget? :-(

Good points, and I wish I had answers (I'm sure the business-guys do :-))
Even the mighty Kodak Colorwatch system sometimes turns out an off-color 
print :-).

mike


>-- 
>Barry Margolin
>System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
>
>barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

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



DISCLAIMER:
Kodak gives me this Net access for free, but they aren't responsible for my postings.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Robert Koch <Bob Koch@SAIC.Dayton.ccmail>
Subject: Re: Recommend slide labelling program?
Organization: Science Application International Corp.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1a2
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:39:09 GMT
X-Posted-From: koch.dayton.saic.com
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Looking for Info on 21-35/3.5 zoom
Date: 1 Sep 92 11:15:01 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science

In article <1992Aug31.191435.27664@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> djmeyer@austin.ibm.com writes:

>Does anybody have any first-hand information on the Sigma 21-35
>wide-angle zoom.  

>I'm looking for a wide-angle zoom for my EOS 620 and the Canon version
>is out of my price range.

Here is what the swedish magazine "Aktuell Fotografi" had to say about
a few wide-angle zooms. The testing was done in the same manner I
described in my previous post about 300mm lenses.

   Canon EF 20-35/2.8L
   Rating: 3.6
   MTF at 20mm: 0.74
          35mm: 0.78
   Weighted average: 0.76
   Distorsion: -3.6% to -0.5%
   Comment: A good zoom lens, possibly a little too expensive. Sharpness
   decreases outside the center of the image.

   Sigma AF 21-35/3.5-4.2
   Rating: 3.6
   MTF at 21mm: 0.77
          35mm: 0.75
   Weighted average: 0.76
   Distorsion: -4.9% to -2.4%
   Comment: A very good lens. Performancewise it is comparable to the
   Canon EF 20-35/2.8L.

   Tokina AF 20-35/3.5-4.5
   Rating: 3.4
   MTF at 20mm: 0.73
          35mm: 0.76
   Weighted average: 0.74
   Distorsion: -5.6% to -2.1%
   Comment: Almost as good as Sigma and Canon despite much lower price.
   Tangential resolution decreases towards the edge at 20mm. The
   distorsion is rather high at 20mm.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: 1 day photo trips from San Jose, CA
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:55:48 GMT

> 
> I will be visiting the Bay area in mid Sept., and have Sat. free.  I
> would like to spend the day on nature photography, and would like
> suggestions or comments on where I can go for this.  I plan to get up
> *early* Sat. morning so that I drive in the dark and am on location at
> sunrise.  It may be a long time before I have such an opportunity again.
>  
> I have identified two potential locations to visit.  The first is to
> go north along the coast to Muir Woods and Point Reyes and whatever else is
> time permiting.  I have heard that Point Reyes is not as crowded as some
> other areas (?) and offers good natural scenes.
>  
> The second idea is Yosemite.  Of course, this entails a 4 hour predawn
> drive.  I must return to San Jose Sat night.  Is this enough time, or should
> I save Yosemite for sometime when I have a whole weekend or more?  Also,
> does the crowd situation permit serious photo taking.  (I don't mind hiking,
> but time is an issue.)  It is probably not worth 8 hours of driving just to
> say I have seen it and to take a few casual snapshots.
>  
> Please Reply to the address below or post to this newsgroup, as I have

Though not a west coast resident, I have visited the area many times and 
often find myself in a similar position. If by "Nature" you mean scenics
then nothing will compare to Yosemite - though it is quite a 1 day drive
from San Jose. I would recommend the Monteray area for both scenics and
wildlife - check out Pt. Lobos State Park just south of Carmel. Ansel Adams
used to live and photograph there, which says a lot. There are pelicans,
seal lions and seals in the Monteray Bay (visit Fishermans wharf). I think
that is where I would go if I had only one day. You should certainly find
sea otters around Pt. Lobos - but take a LONG lens if you have one, at least
500mm if you want any chance of decent pictures of them.

I'll be back out in the area next February, so I'd also be interested in any
comments local residents may have on this subject!

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: benoit@netcom.com (BENOIT SCHILLINGS)
Subject: fuji films resolution.
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 22:06:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

I'm looking for the resolution in line/mm for the FUJI HG400
and the FUJICHROME 100.
Does anybody has the fuji info ?

Thanks,


benoit@netcom.com
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Rechargable type of lithium batteries?
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:12:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsm.1992Sep2.171239.11211
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep2.035825.24465@gordian.com>, johnk@gordian.com (John Kalucki) writes:
> 
> I spent an afternoon with the Electronic Source Book looking for
> a NiCad version of the 6V lithium. I contacted about 10 distributors.
> There is no such beast.
> 

You are correct

> WISH MODE ON
> 
> I wouldn't care if it only lasts 1 or 2 rolls, I can keep 2 or 3
> charged and rotate them. I could also keep a (long shelf life)
> lithium in my bag for backup. It would be a lot cheaper and a lot
> less toxic for the environment. Any battery manufacturers out
> there??? Listen UP!
> 

Why not make one up. You can't get 5 Nicad cells in a 2CR5 package, but you
can get 4 1/3AA cells into a 2CR5 space. In my EOS 10s such a pack will JUST
about make it through 1 roll (36 exp). I repeat the warning of my earlier 
posting on this subject - if the NiCad pack screws up your camera for some
reason, you probably void all warranty claims.
===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: tklai@acsu.buffalo.edu (Tobysze K. Lai)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Here is some info on new Sigma lenses
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:28:43 GMT
Organization: UB

ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) wrote:

>I just got off the phone with Sigma (516-585-1144).
>
>......
>
>70-300 AF
>---------
>
>Here the two interesting options are the APO and the (new) DL.
>DL stands for "deluxe" which is a bunch of features a Nikon lens
>may not have.  The DL is $170, the APO is $270.  Many net.folks
>have told me this APO is an excellent lens.  Again, if you know
>something about the optics of the DL please let me know.
>
>......

I read a test report (about 2 weeks ago) from a July editon on a 
Chinese photography magazine) on the Sigma AF 75-300 f/4-5.6 and the 
comments on this lens were not bad.  The one tested by the writer has 
Canon EF mount, and according to the writer, the lens has a new design 
in its motor, so the focusing speed of the lens is faster than most 
conventional Sigma AF lens.  The degree of sharpness of the pictures 
taken from the lens is average, but the color resolution is good.  
The macro ratio stated by Sigma was 1:4, but according to the writer, 
in actual practice, it was only 1:9 (?).  Given the cost of
the lens ($170) and the quality of the pictures, the writer thinks this 
lens should be a good deal.   

>1.4x teleconverter AF
>---------------------
>
>Sigma has no other teleconverter.  For a while they did a 2x manual
>but that has been discontinued.  This is .7 inches long and weighs
>6 ounces (how much is that?).

Cost about $145.

Toby Lai
tklai@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: savoia@sw.stratus.com (Rick Savoia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photograping Whales [8008s autofocus problem]
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:17:08 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep3.050713.4051@athena.mit.edu>, dmatic@athena.mit.edu (Davor Matic) writes:
> In article <6092@transfer.stratus.com> savoia@sw.stratus.com (Rick Savoia) writes:
> >
> 
> Before you went to flame at this guy, Rick, you should have made sure

I didn't flame at anybody, Davor.  I guess what I had was a common
misunderstanding (which has since been corrected :) of the compatibility 
of Minolta cameras.  I've seen a lot of literature and articles
on the Minolta cameras and I haven't seen it pointed out that most
of the old Minolta mount lenses can be used with the xi cameras
and vice versa.  Nikon makes points this out all the time so I was
very aware of the fact even before I owned one.  If anyone flamed,
he did (which by this time, I've even forgotten who he is!) with 
his posting about Nikon systems.  But then again, there's a lively
debate about Nikon, Canon, and Minolta about every three months, 
so I guess it really isn't a flame. :)

Wow!  All this on one question on how to photograph a whale!


Rick
========================================================
Rick Savoia                     |	This
savoia@watts.sqa.stratus.com    |	Space
rsavoia@beirut.sqa.stratus.com  |	For
Rick_Savoia@vos.stratus.com     |	Rent
========================================================
Xref: sparky rec.photo:14977 alt.cd-rom:2796 gnu.misc.discuss:2777 misc.int-property:873
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:31:39 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman) writes:
>Just like Dolby, we want to protect and "milk" that effort for all we can.

Nice point.  Ok, Kodak-boycotters, why have you not also proposed a
boycott of Dolby?  After all, signal processing is signal processing.

David Chase
Sun
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Running 110v enlarger with 240v supply
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:01:44 GMT

In article <fred-mckenzie-250892091527@128.159.169.79>, fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie) writes:
> In article <37560010@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>, bwm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Brian
> McBride) wrote:
>> I have just returned from a few years working in the US.  I bought a Bessler
>> 67S englarger when I was out there and have brought it back with me.
...
> I'm not really suggesting running a bank of light bulbs in a darkroom, just
> trying to suggest a way to draw current!  One could always run an extension
> cord outside to the bulbs.
> 
Or be radical and get a 240v globe. I used a Bessler years ago, with a motorized
lift. It was re-wired to 110 to the motor ia a trany, and 250 to the globe.
If you are wondering about the 250, it should hae been 256 actualy. In pracice
I have seen anything from 210 to 330! Welcome to WA.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Sigma 1.4x AF converter, good? 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:59:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Anybody has that converter?  Good?
Will it work with MF lens (in MF mode, of course)?
How much?
From: dmatic@athena.mit.edu (Davor Matic)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Looking for Info on 21-35/3.5 zoom
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:49:58 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug31.191435.27664@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, djmeyer@austin.ibm.com writes:
|> 
|> Does anybody have any first-hand information on the Sigma 21-35
|> wide-angle zoom.  
|> 
|> I'm looking for a wide-angle zoom for my EOS 620 and the Canon version
|> is out of my price range.
|> 
|> Thanks.

I just bought one for my MAXXUM 8000i.  The lens looks nifty, it has
a built in shade.  It seems to have a little barrel distortion at 21mm,
but otherwise seems fine.  It will focus from 0.5m to 6m and then to 
infinity.  The only thing I would complain about is the litle clicking 
noise when you shake the lens, and the auto focus mechanism seems to be 
quite heavy for my camera to handle beacuse of big 77mm lenses it has 
to turn.  Make sure you buy the newer version with ZEN finish.
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: fuji films resolution.
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:19:39 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

benoit@netcom.com (BENOIT SCHILLINGS) writes:
: I'm looking for the resolution in line/mm for the FUJI HG400
: and the FUJICHROME 100.

From Petersen's Photographic, January 1992:

Fujichrome 100		125 l/mm
Fujicolor HG400		100 l/mm

Jay Ts
From: edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor Legvold)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Prints from XP2?
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:57:19 GMT
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway



Someone mentioned that XP2 can be run E-6.  I didn't notice this in
the info brochure.  Does one then get B/W slides (positives)???

Regards,
Thor
From: mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc Sarrel)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Photographing Softball
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:38:16 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory


Well, I took my new (but now obsolete :-) ) 8008s out for another test
drive last night.  I photographed one of my teams softball games.  We
play in a company league and are really more concerned with pizza and
beer than softball. :-)

Anyway, after reading the discussion about whales, I decided to turn
off my autofocus.  The first set of pictures I took were of people at
bat.  I set my camera on my tripod, prefocused, precomposed and then
all I had to do was press the shutter release when it looked likely
that the batter would swing.

The problem I seemed to have is that the shutter still seemed to lag
the button press by a considerable amount relative to a bat swing.  I
seemed to get better at anticipating as the game wore on, though.  I
think the problem was that I was used to the lag of my dad's 15 year
old Canon manual (no religious wars, please).  Any suggestions?

After that, I switched to photographing some fielding.  Since we had
exactly ten players show up, I could only photograph the other team's
fielding. :-(  Again, I turned off the autofocus.  This time, I tried
to hyper-focus as best I could using the DOF scale in the lens manual
(35-70mm f/3.3-4.5) and then stood far away enough to keep the whole
infield in focus.  I hope it worked.

I seemed to leave the lens at the 70mm setting the whole time.  This
doesn't surprise me and the next lens I plan to buy is a zoom in the
70-200mm range.  This would help for those plays accross the infield.

I haven't developed the negs yet, so I can't say how they turned out.

Was I "right" to turn off the auto focus?  Has anyone gotten this sort
of thing to work with the auto focus on?  Any other suggestions?  I'm
going to take pics of our final two games, but probably won't buy that
new lens before then.

Any ideas would be fun...

Marc
--
Marc Sarrel			"Strange as it seems,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory	 There's been a run of crazy dreams,
mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov		 And a man who can interpret could go far --
				 Could become a star."
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: clcp16@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ("S.C.Russell")
Subject: Re: Bogus Olympus Add
Organization: University of Strathclyde
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:32:02 GMT

In article <5360788@hplsla.hp.com>, barryg@hplsla.hp.com (Barry Gunn) writes:
|> Has anyone seen the new add for the Olympus Stylus that shows a
|> baseball player hugging a little boy? I don't think they could've
|> been taken with the Stylus.

	Does an advertisement for a camera have to be taken with
the camera advertised?

Nice as the mju-1's lens may be (The Infinity Stylus is called mju
here, which caused a bit of friction) I don't think it could have
taken that picture either.

	Stewart C. Russell
Newsgroups: rec.photo,cmh.forsale
From: djb@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.j.bryant)
Subject: == Pentax screw-mount cameras and lenses for sale ==
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:58:25 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Keywords: for sale, screw mount, universal mount, Mamiya/Sekor

After a year or so with my new K-mount camera system, I've decided it's
time to "pass along" my old screw-mount gear to those who might have a
use for it.  As a result, I have the following items for sale.  Prices
include shipping to anywhere in the contental U.S.  I'll consider any 
reasonable offer, and would be happy to work out "package deals" if you're 
interested in more than one item.

Tokina 22mm f/2.8 EL lens, mint- condition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $30
   f/16 maximum aperture, 1' close focus distance, 52mm accessory
   thread, lens and rear caps, soft carrying pouch

Tokina SZ 820 80-200mm f/4 zoom, zoom ring a tad loose, else exc+ . . . $50
   RMC multi-coat, f/22 maximum aperture, 6.3' close focus distance,
   55mm accessory thread, rear cap, rubberized grip on zoom ring,
   with instruction book and soft carrying pouch. (This is a fixed-
   aperture zoom!)

Bushnell 35mm f/2.8, mint- condition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25
   Lens cap, f/16 maximum aperture, 1.3' close focus distance,
   manual/auto switch, has half stops, with soft carrying pouch,
   52mm accessory thread

Mamiya/Sekor 55mm f/1.8, exc+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20
   f/16 maximum aperture, has half stops, 1.75' close focus distance,
   manual/auto switch, minor dent in filter ring but not enough to
   bind filter threads in the slightest, 52mm accessory thread

Mamiya/Sekor 55mm f/1.4, exc+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25
   f/16 maximum aperture, has half stops, 1.75' close focus distance,
   manual/auto switch, 55mm accessory thread, metal lens cap

Vivitar AT-1 automatic extension tube set, mint-  . . . . . . . . . . . $10

Spiratone T-mount adapter for Pentax/Universal thread, mint . . . . . . $ 5

Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL, meter intermittent, else exc . . . . . . . . . . $25
  Lightly engraved name in base, soft case, with instruction book

Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL, mirror inoperable, else exc- . . . . . . . . . . $20
  add-on flash shoe atop pentaprism, soft case, with copy of 
  instruction book

I'd be happy to answer questions on the lenses or camera bodies.  For
historical types, the 1000 DTL pioneered new territory by offering both
averaging and spot metering in an "entry-level" camera body.  I loved my
1000 DTL (my first 35mm SLR) and got lots of wonderful pictures with it.
Hopefully some (or all) of this gear will be of similar use to someone else.

                                         UUCP: att!cbosgd!djb
        David Bryant                           att!cborion!djb
        AT&T Bell Laboratories       INTERNET: djb@cborion.cb.att.com
        Room 1B-256                            djb@cbosgd.att.com
        6200 East Broad Street          PHONE: (614) 860-4516
        Columbus, Ohio  43213             FAX: (614) 868-4302
From: axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photo-CD - THE FACTS
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:37:48 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY

In article <252@metran.UUCP>, jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>
>Disclaimer: Please note that as far as "religion" goes, I am neither for
>nor against Photo CD.  It has certain strengths that cannot easily be
>produced using traditional media, and it has some weaknesses...
>
>Disclaimer 2:  I am NOT a Photo CD expert!
>
>It could be argued that since most camera lenses don't come anywhere near
>100 l/mm, Photo CD is really ok.  However, I would like to point out in
>advance that:
>
>1.  There are a good number of photographers using really good camera
>    lenses -- Leica, Zeiss, and the better Nikon and Canon lenses, some
>    of which are capable of over 100 l/mm resolution.

Absolutely true.  Not to mention some of the more "esoteric" setups some 
people employ.

>
>2.  There are a good number of photographers who consider 35mm to
>    be a "toy" medium.  Stretch 3072x2048 pixels across medium or
>    large format, and it doesn't work out as well.

Again, completely true.  Although this point is really the same as point #1
from a different perspective.

>
>3.  Camera lenses, especially at this point in history, are subject
>    to incredible improvement.  A theoretically-perfect f/2 lens would
>    be diffraction limited to over 500 l/mm, for example.  A small
>    breakthrough in manufacturing technology, combined with good design,
>    could make resolution like this quite possible in a few years.  At
>    least, over 100 l/mm could become common!
>

Now you're getting me excited.  Do you really think this will happen in just 
a few years?  Is lens technology changing that quickly?

>I hope Kodak has left room for improvement in their spec.
>

For all of these reasons, plus a few others, Kodak (and don't forget Philips)
have left "extensions" to spec.  Some of these include support of a 35mm - 4x5
scanner subsystem for Photo CD which will be "for sale" next year.
The most immediate requirement will be for 64BASE and 256BASE resolutions to 
acheive the same sampling density across the larger formats.

For all you disclaimers, Jay, you've done a good job of addressing the 
key points.  Are you looking for a job?  We can't compete with that Tampa
weather, but Rochester has it's charm.

mike

>Jay Ts

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



DISCLAIMER:
Kodak gives me this Net access for free, but they aren't responsible for my postings.