HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcfarlan@aurigaxerox.com (Doug McFarland 73624 - UI Systems)
Subject: Re: VIEW CAMARA
Reply-To: mcfarland.henr801c@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:10:01 GMT

In article <351110ba9@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Larry.Borden@f19.n116.z1.fidonet.org writes:
|> I've always wanted to own and use a 4x5 or 8x10 view camara. I know that they 
|> are heavy and cumbersome, but the idea of carefully considering a scene or
|> person and capturing that scene is this large format holds a zen-like quality 
|> for me. Perhaps it is the sense that "it" needs to be released to place the
|> camara just "so" and to release the shutter just "when". I own seveal 35mm
|> camaras and I would give them all up to have back the Hasse. I had to sell 12 
|> years ago. 
|> 
|> Can anyone suggest a good quality 4x5 and/or 8x10 which is at once portable
|> and of excellent quality. Swings and tilts front and rear preferred, but not
|> the only factor. I would like to transport this equipment to remote locations 
|> via backpack and return with studio quality images of life, people, and
|> places. Any help you can offer is appreciated.
|> 
|> Lawrence Borden
|> 
|> --- TMail v1.31


This is exactly what I would like to do, but I'll qualify this by saying
that I'm only (for now) interested in B&W. From a recent post of mine "Sinar
Questions" you might guess that I'm still looking ... yes.

I started by looking at Zone VI wooden field cameras. You can contact Zone VI
for a catalog by calling 1-800-457-1114. They have 4x5's and 8x10's. These
cameras are vary similar to (perhaps are) Wista's). Some net folks said that
I might want to consider the Weisners which are a bit more expensive but
(many feel) a better wooden field camera. For me, I'm not sure of the Zone VI
because I want to shoot medium format to 6x9, and I can only put a 6x7
back on the Zone VI (It's not a "graflock" back).  

I've only started looking at the metal field cameras. I've just started
looking at the Sinars, so I can't advise. I still have to look at the
Toyo and Horseman field. Note that Horseman makes a medium format field
camera VH and VHR for 6x9 work but they are more expensive than many of
the 4x5's.

I would strongly recommend you study each issue of Shutterbug and any
catalogs you get ... it's an education. 

My best recommendation to you is that you carefully consider what you really
want to do. Why do you need a view camera ? Would 6x7 be adequate ?
What kind of lens would be adequate ? Do you really want sheet film ?
Process it yourself ? Color ? ... on and on ...

Shooting view in the field is a very very different style of photography, but
a style you could easily do with a 35mm camera. All my field work is with
35mm and I use all the view camera styles (I recently spent an entire
afternoon in a corn field waiting for a particular combination of sun
and clouds). 

-- 
	learnin' from the guy that's still learnin'

	Doug McFarland


********************************************
        McFarland.henr801c@Xerox.com    
********************************************
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Mac, of course (Was Re: IBM vs. Mac for stock business)
Keywords: image manipulation
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:41:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1993Jan12.102439.25533@cc.ic.ac.uk> umeca80@ps.ic.ac.uk (Bruce Taylor) writes:
>Look if you want to do image manipulation on a computer just buy a Cray X-MP.

Nah, buy a Cray-3 - we need the money ;-)

Steve
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: slide dupe mount for micro-nikkor
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:28:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Dec30.174013.24489@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky) writes:
>i am interested in duping slides and making internegatives from
>slides.  since i have a 105mm micro lens which goes 1:1, i'd
>like to take advantage of its optical qualities rather than
>opting for an inexpensive duping rig (like cambron's :-( ).
>
>i'd like to illuminate the exposure with the SB24, and
>envision a setup where i could slap the slide in a holder,
>point it at the flash unit (using an off-camera sync cord,
>of course), and press the shutter.

You don't actually need to aim the SB-24 directly at the slide.
Instead get a clean white piece of cardboard or paper and put that in
front of your setup, then aim the SB-24 at that.  If you get an
attachment that has opal glass, you may not need this.

  -- David Jacobson
From: samuel@cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Samuel)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: IBM vs. Mac for stock business
Date: 7 Jan 1993 22:06:18 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: cheech.cs.ubc.ca

Theodore Stresen-Reuter <U42075@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>I would like to start a discussion addressing the pros and cons of IBM
>vs. Macintosh as a multipurpose machine for an independent photographer.

>Here is the question: Do you buy an IBM or a Macintosh (or some other
>system) and why?

>You would like to use your computer for image manipulation and for image
>storage purposes.
>You have virtually no experience with computers.
>You have friends with both systems who could lend a hand when it comes
>time to learn but you are not preparred to pay for consultation.

From this, I would say: Get a Mac.  Macs generally seem to have a very
good reputation in the area of multimedia, and more importantly, tend
to be easier to learn, use, and install things for.

Obvious things to look for (off the top of my head):
 1) Color.. (obvious, eh?) should be able to go to 24bit color, if you
don't start it there, if you want to play with pictures.

 2) Expandability: The more memory that you can fit in the unit the better.
for image manipulation, I'd think that it would be easy to find use for 
at LEAST 48MB without working to hard, even though you could probably get
away with less for a start (though 16MB would be a bare minimum).

 3) Disk space:  Face it: if you're playing with images, you'll use all
the space you can find and more.  A large hard disk (400MB+) and a 
removable RW optical drive would both be good ideas. (if you can't 
afford an optical drive, then make sure to get a good tape backup system).

4) CD-ROM : Even if you're not going to have stuff digitized by Kodak, 
chances are that you're going to find a use for this. For archiving 
purposes, Kodak CDs are probably cheaper than Optical platters (for now).

-- 
-- 
Stephen Samuel 		(604)822-9248		samuel@cs.ubc.ca
The first prerequisite to winning is playing the game.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rjm@cs.brown.edu (Ralph Marshall)
Subject: Re: Photographing people; need permission?
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:20:03 GMT

In article <347@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>: In <346@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>: 
>: What does one do in the case of a candid?  If one is trying to capture
>: a "spontaneous" moment.  It's not feasible to ask in advance.
>
>Right, so just take the picture!  If/when they see you, act nice.  If they
>become offended, leave ;-).  Actually, if you can do something to calm them
>down, i.e., "Hey, it's only a camera, ok?", that might help.

Or it might not...  I was down in a seedy section of Pawtucket, RI (a
redundant phrase) taking pictures of the Providence and Worcester
railroad (and probably trespassing) when a large, seedy, and
chemically altered man came over to ask if I was taking pictures of
*him* Since I didn't see him until it was too late to run, I just said
no, but his follow-up was "You'd better not be taking pictures of me
or I'll wrap that fucking camera around your fucking head" [it was on
a tripod, so this was a plausible outcome] Somehow I suspect he
wouldn't have been interested in signing anything...

Ralph Marshall
rjm@cs.brown.edu



Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: yen@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Tony Yen)
Subject: Re: Lecia camera features (Leica wannabe)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:37:56 GMT

In article <C0nJH8.5qL.2@cs.cmu.edu> rane+@cs.cmu.edu (Aaron Hughes) writes:
>Here I was just a wastin' time pagin' through the lastest issue of
>Shutterbug, when for no reason (probably the  terrible and incurable
>"Let's-spend-money-we-don't-have" itch) I began looking at prices 
>for used Lecia R4's,R5's and R-E's.  The R5's ranged from $695 to 
>$1295 and the R4's from $450 to $750 - didn't see any R-E's. 
>
>What I'm asking is, what are the basic features of these 3 cameras? 

They are all manual focus SLR's with electronic shutters. Both R4 and R5
have aperture priority and shutter speed prioirty. R-E has only aperture
priority. R5 and R-E have TTL flash control, R4 does not.
R5 is now supplanted by R7.

>In all the pictures I've seen, just about the only cosmetic difference 
>I can see is the model number on the front of the body.

You are correct.

>Are all the lenses that expensive? All the prices I saw put most of the 
>lenses at or near the price of the camera? Are there any less expensive
>alternatives that I could utilize without degrading the picture quality
>substantially? I'd like to buy into the built-like-a-tank , smooth-as-silk
>operation of the Leica's, but if I can't afford a even a few basic lenses,
>I may as well pick up an Olympus OM-4/OM-4T.

All new Leica lenses are now over $1000 a piece. You may want to buy
used ones. You may also consider Tamron lenses. Tamron makes a Leica
adaptor for its SLR lenses. Tamron lenses are the best after-market lenses.

>Thanks.
>-- 
>Aaron Hughes        DoD#0482   		The Freedom Junkie	
>rane+@pulsar.fac.cs.cmu.edu		Bad cop. No donut.

Let there be no mystery about Leica cameras and lenses. Yes, they are well
made. However, Nikon and Canon lenses are every bit as good as Leica lenses
nowadays. As far as I'm concerned, the only cameras Leica needs to make are
the range-finder M6's and they should make them auto-focus.
Leica no longer holds the lead in optics design as it did before WWII. 
The Japanese do.

Tony
From: keene@titan.ucc.umass.edu (STEFAN L KEENE)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: NIKON FAQ?
Date: 9 Jan 1993 22:57:46 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucc.umass.edu



Could someone tell me where the Nikon FAQ is located and any
other rec.photo FAQ.

Thanks,
Stefan
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Photographing the TV screen
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:00:17 GMT

Whether the shutter is leaf type or focal plane type has little to do
with it.  The important point is that the TV screen is being constantly
rescanned by the electron beam, and each scan takes 1/30 second.
So you need to expose long enough for several scans; 1/8 second is a
good exposure time.

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington     internet mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: pinhole camera
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 00:10:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.001258.3199@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>In <1992Dec28.032027.18614@ultb.isc.rit.edu> andpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:

>>It is somewhat amazing that in these days of ultra-sophisticted cameras and
>>technology there seems to be a great many pinhole enthusiasts around! [...]

>Probably because these ultra-sophisticated cameras are becoming too
>hard to use and are too expensive.

Has anybody heard anything about the new pinhole cameras that accept
RECHARAGEABLE batteries?  How many shots can they take before they
need to be recharged?  Does anybody know?

(Woops, I forgot the :-).

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
From: uli@i13d5.ira.uka.de (Uli Bodenhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Blad vs Mamiya (Lenses, Weight, Other)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 20:25:33 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i13d5.ira.uka.de

In article <1993Jan5.143831.29946@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, stb@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (becker,sheldon t) writes:
|> 
|> I have also been very interested in the question of the relative worth of
|> the Hassi as compared to other camera outfit combinations.  If you read the
|> trade papers --- Mamyia appears to have had some level of 
|> success in getting the pro's to move from the Hassi to the RZ.  At a recent
|> trade show, Mamyia claimed to have 40% of the Medium Format Market, which
|> is probably true when you consider their RB is being used in many portrait 
|> studios.  

It seems to me as if the purchase of Hasselblad equipment can also be seen
as an investment. The price of this stuff probably goes up. So if you can take
care of the equipment very well and it isn't stolen, you probably don't
loose money.

Frome the viewpoint of actually using the equipment I think that Mamyia
also produces excellent equipment. If it is used right, both systems
will produce very good images.

The RZ might be too heavy for field use. Have a look at the Pentax 67
if you mostly take your pictures outdoors.

I have a Pentax 67. At home (in my 'studio' ...) I would prefer a RZ. In the
field I'm glad that I have the Pentax. The Pentax is even cheaper than the RZ!

	Uli

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio)
Subject: Re: IBM vs. Mac for stock business
Summary: Ahem, here's another shameless Mac plug
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 07:01:57 GMT
Expires: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 05:00:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Keywords: computers for photographers
Followup-To: rec.photo

In article <1993Jan12.034941.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
>In article <93007.200852U42075@uicvm.uic.edu>, Theodore Stresen-Reuter <U42075@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>> Let's start with the following: You already have an established
>> photography business.  You specialize in photographing dogs.  Your

>> by hand, billing, bookeeping, everything.  You now have $3000 dollars to
>> spend on a computer and you believe that your business is eventually
>> going to end up as a stock photography collection specializing in
>> animals.

>> Here is the question: Do you buy an IBM or a Macintosh (or some other
>> system) and why?
>
>Get a cheep clone, and keep most of the 3K.

Or get a 486 33/66 DX2 with a 24-bit color board and blow it all.

Or wait for February 10 to check out the new Centris Macs.

>> You would like to use your computer for image manipulation and for image
>> storage purposes.
>
>Forget it for now. She will need *MANY* gigs of disk, and this
>will be a 10-20K cost.

Or get a computer with a PhotoCD drive built-in and a 200+ MB
disk drive and some sort of removable (SyQuest 44 will do).

>> You have virtually no experience with computers.
>> 
>> You have friends with both systems who could lend a hand when it comes
>> time to learn but you are not preparred to pay for consultation.

>Ask "Why do people come to you?" If quality is part of the answer, forget
>anything short of a Kodak Premium or equivalent for image processing.

It's called the Kodak Premier. (I'm a member of Pro Passport and
received Kodak's tech notes) For a lot of stuff, it's overkill.

>On the hunt and grunt side of things, a PC with a few good tools can make life
>a lot more enjoyable come tax time, or finding records etc ad nausium.

Agreed. But it won't do diddly-squat for the artsy-fartsy things.

>Get her books on a computer, them look at catalogue,
>people/orginisation index, dark-room/printing data.

No reason any of this can't be done on a Mac, and more easily.

>The ability to pull the details of a 6 mo old order to get the colour balance
>near spot on 1st time is somthing I would have killed for 10 years ago...

And the ability to visually index the image(s) in question using
low-res color thumbnails is something the Mac does FAR better...

Did I miss anything?

Victor 8^)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ee_hflo@uxmail.ust.hk (Michael Lo Ho Fung)
Subject: Re: Byu a Nikon FE 2, FA of F3?
Organization: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:15:29 GMT

mlindholm@cc.helsinki.fi wrote:
: I own a Nikon FM 2, and I am thinking of byuing
	I also own a FM2. It is very good one for beginner and backup for 
professional.

: another body, with aperture priority automatic.

: My question is: what are the differences between
: Nikon FE 2, FA and F3 models?  Which one should I

	Three of them a very good body.

: purchase (second hand, that is)?

: Many thanks to all who bother to answer.

: Mikko Lindholm

: Mikko.Lindholm@helsinki.fi
: or: mlindholm@cc.helsinki.fi

I try to tell you that the differences I know about those three bodies.

FE2:
Same outlook as FM2
shutter speed 1-1/4000 (electronic)  1/250 (mechanical)
              ^may be slower
meter : 40/60 center weighted with (match nibble)
TTL Flash hot shoe, a small LED at the view finder.
AE lock and meter compansation ring. (+/-3 EV)
can use MD-12 motor drive

FA:
Top shutter speed : 1/4000  1/250 (mechanical)
Flash sync speed : 250
meter : AMF multi-segment
automatic exposure: shutter and aperture priorty with two program (hi/lo) 
TTL Flash and meter compansation ring but no AE lock.(may done by AMF)
can use MD-12 motor drive and other motor for FA (forget the model no.)

F3 (Top model F series in 80's )
F3-HP (with High eyes-point view finder) 
F3-P  (Professional Model: stroger body and more protection in joints and
body, no self timer [no need for pro] , titanium high eyes point view finder
with hot shoe at the top.
F3-T  (Titanium body : lighter and stronger)
F3-AF ( AF version of F3 , it must use the speical 85/180mm lens for AF.)

Shutter speed : 4-1/2000 with X / T and 1/90 (mechanical)
Flash sync speed :1/90s
meter: 20/80 center weighted (LCD  with two arrows)
automatic exposure : aperture priorty
inter-chageable finder
MD-4 6 frame /sec motor
the AI coupler on the F mount can be move such that old non-AI can insert
 in the F mount (but no automatic nor meter provide) 
...... too many feature.
Anyone can tell me any other major difference that I miss about those body.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Lo Ho Fung Michael  Comp 'N'         |    == Internet e-mail address ==   |
|  Department of                        |  University  : ee_hflo@stu.ust.hk  | 
|  Electrical & Electronic Engineering  |  Oversea BBS : mlo@nyx.cs.du.edu   |
|  The Hong Kong University             |  Local BBS   : michaelo@gnct.com   | 
|  of Science & Technology              |  Radio Call Sign : VR2YJR          |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Kodak RFS 2035 Film Scanner - Is it good?  Is $7194 a good price?
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:10:06 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA

In article <1icp3mINN883@agate.berkeley.edu>, rab@sprite.berkeley.edu (Robert A. Bruce) writes:
|> I need to buy a 35mm film scanner for digitizing slides and negatives.
|> The Kodak RFS 2035 looks like a pretty good deal, but I was wondering
|> if anyone has used it and can tell me what is good or bad about it.
|> 
|> The list price is $7995, but I have found it for $7194.  Does anyone
|> know of a lower price?  I prefer a source outside California, so I won't
|> have to pay sales tax.
|> 
|> 	-bob


Bob ---

Welcome to 1993...

A new law went into effect this year...  If you ship to/from CA & most other
states, sales taxes will be charged at the rate of the receiving state.

No more free tax ride.

--- hans
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Hasselblad "C" vs "CF" lenses
Date: 7 Jan 1993 10:29:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Hasselblad switched from C lenses to CF lenses in late 1982.  The C lenses
has Compur shutters and also had a self-timer and sync settings for either
flash bulbs or electronic flash.

The CF lenses have Prontor shutters, only sync {X-sync) with electronic flash
and have no self timer.

I beleive that both versions can be obtained with T* multi-coating - certainly
the CF series are all T* coated.

So any C lens is at least 10 years old....

brian
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Best cold weather performance? (was Re: Lithiums vs. alkalines)
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:23:40 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Dec17.231954.3022@csus.edu>, swansond@nextnet.csus.edu (Dennis Swanson) writes:

> Seems like I've had worse luck with lithium batteries vs. silver oxide
> (we're talking the 'button' kind here) in moderately cold (40's F) weather
> so I'm wondering if someone in the know could rank AA's and NiCads and
> those mega-buck lithiums in this respect.

Alkalines are probably the worst kind of batteries to use in cold
weather. I most often use eight AA alkalines in my EOS-1, but they'll
only last for between one and five rolls of film in cold weather.
If I use AA lithium cells instead (UCAR LithEon, expensive but good),
I'll get a whopping 25 to 35 rolls of film per battery set (which more
than enough covers the extra cost of the lithium cells). I sometimes
also use NiCd or NiHy cells. The give a performance in cold weather
that's similar to that of lithium cells -- between 20 and 30 rolls per
set.

If I had a better charger, I'd use NiCd's or NiHy's all the time; if
the Lithium's were easier to find, I'd use them more often. The only
advantage with alkaline's, from my point of view, is that they're
the easiest to find.

-- 
--------------------- This mass of gibberish came from ---------------------
         ____
        |    |               Robert Claeson
        |    |               Data General AB
 _______|____|_              Box 28
|    |    _    |_____        S-164 93 KISTA
|_/\ |   / \   |     |       Sweden
| \/ |   \_/   |   . |
|    |    |    |_____|       robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
|____|_________|-
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: PXY@ECLX.PSU.EDU (Pen-Li Yen)
Subject: Re: For Sale: Excellent Screw Mount Pentax 35mm SLR
Organization: Penn State Engineering Computer Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:16:56 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <yyd1H4vryb@atlantis.psu.edu> PXY@ECLX.PSU.EDU writes:

> The following items would like to sell as a whole set for Pentax
> screw mount collectors.  I will consider to sell them separately if the
> price is reasonable.  Almost all of them in mint condition w/original
> caps.
> 
> 1. Pentax Spotmatic body w/Pentax flash attachment; sn# 296390X
> 2. 50mm Pentax super-takumar 1.4 w/skylight & metallic pentax cap
> 	sn#380558X
> 3. 20mm 3.8 Auto Vivitar fisheye w/vivitar metallic cap
> 	sn#2200372X
> 4. 35mm 2.8 Auto Vivitar wideangle w/vivitar metallic cap
> 	sn#2200131X
> 5. 35-85mm 2.8 Vivitar series 1 w/72mm UV filter & cap
> 	sn#2250306X
> 6. 85-205mm 3.8 Auto Vivitar Tele-Zoom w/skylight & metallic vivitar cap
> 	sn#2200275X
> 7. 3X Vivitar auto custom teleconverter w/f stop measurment & original case
> 8. Vivitar 272 auto thyristor flash w/ wide angle diffusion screen,
> 	90degree vertical, w/external syn. cord; w/external power supply
> 	socket.  sn# 412252X
> 
> Serious collector only.
> 
> All of above are screw mount.
> 
> Asking $800
> 
> Yuesea
------------------------------------------------------------
Any reasonable offers will get response.

Yuesea