HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: faust@faust.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Where to post this...
Reply-To: faust@faust.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:30:39 GMT


--

>converted to the standard color .GIF format.  These color
>.GIFS will then be placed on our CD-ROM disc for distribution
>to places throughout the world.  If you would like to
>contribute some of your photos of the above categories please
>send your pictures to the address listed below.  If we use at
>least 25 photos from your collection we will send you a free
>CD-ROM disc upon completion.  If you would like your pictures
>returned to you after scanning please include $2.50 shipping.
>If you have any questions about our process please call
>today.  The deadline for receipt of your pictures for the
>first CD-ROM is Feb.  15, 1993.


Gregg,

	Great idea, but you forgot to post how much you are paying for
	the rights to use the photos. Most stock agencies give the
	photographers 50% for usage rights. I would imagine you are offering
	a similar arrangement?  I have also heard of photo CD's where the
	photographers get a specific sum based on the overall volume of CD
	sales (ie, .10 per image per CD sold). So, which is it?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen R Faust                                         faust@bagels.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.                            faust@bagels.enet.dec.com
Networks and Communications                                   (508) 486-7433
Littleton, MA
============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Which lenses report focusing distance electronically?
Date: 29 Dec 92 02:35:46 GMT

In <TJWU.92Dec28153541@carbonara.mit.edu> tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu) writes:

>Are Nikon's D-series lenses the only AF lenses that report focus distance
>to the camera body?  Do any Canon, Minolta, or third-party lenses do this?

With the release of the EOS 10s, the following USM lenses were reported to
return focus distance information:

	EF 35-135mm f/4.0-5.6
	EF 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5
	EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6
	EF 100mm f/2.8

The EOS 10s came out in 1990.  I imagine all USM lenses since then
include focus distance decoders.  However, Canon doesn't claim to use
the information for anything.

See my tirade on the "Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?" thread to
see why focusing distance is not terribly useful for judging exposure.
(Though it would be neat to be able to see it in the viewfinder!)

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: aislas@leland.Stanford.EDU (Angel Islas)
Subject: Camera reccomendations sought
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 06:00:34 GMT



Could someone please reccomend a camera in the $200-$250 price range along the
lines of the Minolta X-570. That's the only camera I've ever used. Reasons for
or against a camera would be helpful. Since I don't read this newsgroup, e-mail
responses would be especially appreciated. Thanks.

---
Angel Islas
aislas@leland.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hiroki@molbio.cbs.umn.edu (Hiroki)
Subject: Pentax K1000 vs K1000SE what differences?
Organization: University of Minnesota
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:47:18 GMT


Hi, 
What are the differences between the K1000 and the K1000 special edition?
Also, any recommendations for lenses for this body?
I guess I'm interested in a 28mm fixed or so, and perhaps a longer one
besides a 50mm. (There's a balance here between getting good lenses, and
getting so many thing$ that I feel like I am permanently wedded to this
system) Do you have any better suggestions?

Flash is all calculated right?

Thanks in advance,
Hiroki Morizono
hiroki@limerick.cbs.umn.edu
From: tsreddy@skitime.Eng.Sun.COM (T.S.Reddy)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Tamron 28-200 lens
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:27:22 GMT
Organization: Sun
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skitime


     Has anyone tried this lens on a Canon EOS mount? No camera shop (mail-order 
included) seems to have them in stock except for Camera World of Oregon. I've
tried it on a Maxuum mount and it seems OK (at least for casual photography)
except that it doesn't focus below 7+ feet in the macro mode. I read a review
in Popular Photography (Jan 1993) which stated that this problem was being
fixed by an additional 1/2 diopter close-up lens that goes on the end. They
were also favorably impressed with this setup.

     I would like to have just one lens to lug around for all my meagre 
photography needs, so this lens intrigues me.

Thanks,
T.S.Reddy
(e-mail: tsreddy@Eng.Sun.COM)
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Monday, 28 Dec 1992 13:06:42 MST
From: <IDMLH@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: "Signature Color" film -- what's the story?
 <1992Dec27.100116.21355@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>

I just shot a roll of Signature Color and sent it in as an experiment.
We'll see how well they turn out.  I wonder if they'll come back
and my eyes just jump out of my head from pure excitement :-)

Let's see...it was $1.75 per roll to buy,
but it cost a total of $8.50 to develop (which included postage & handling).
SO WE'LL SEE...I'LL KEEP YA POSTED!
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Rinne@PC386.ikw.uni-hannover.dbp.de (Frank Rinne)
Subject: ADAPTER FOR PENTAX 6X7 LENSES
Keywords: ADAPTER
Organization: IKW
Distribution: ALL
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:32:32 GMT

  I'am looking for an adapter to use PENTAX 6X7
  lenses at my NIKON 801.

  I saw in Popular Photography an adapter (CAMBRIDGE) for
  about 150$.

  Has anybody some information?

  Thanks

   Frank


   Frank Rinne
   Institute of Refrigeration
   University of Hannover / Germany
   Phone 0511 / 762 5001
   Fax   0511 / 762 5203
From: monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 81A, 81B, & 82A filters: What are they for?
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:19:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: flop.1hvo49INN4vu
Distribution: usa
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobo.ece.orst.edu

In article <1992Dec31.102656.1@pearl.tufts.edu> rsmith@pearl.tufts.edu writes:
>I've got three filters that I got years ago.  They were originally lying around
>with some unused equipment or something that my father found, so I don't know
>what they're for.  One is an 82A (light bluish-green color), the others are
>81A and 81B (brownish-yellow).  What are these things used for?  Thanks for
>any information.

 These filters are used for making small modifications to the color
 temperature of lighting. The 82A shifts light to a higher color
 temperature like an 80A filter, but not as much.
 Similarly, the 81A and 81B shift to lower color temperatures, but to a lesser
 extent than the more commonly used 85B filter.

 I find that the 82A is useful to use with an 80A when photographing
 under very yellow light sources, such as 60 and 100 watt incandescent 
 lamps. The 81A and 81B might be useful to correct for the bluish
 appearance in a shady scene exposed to a clear blue sky.

 Proper application of these kinds of filters requires use of an expensive
 color temperature meter. But you can experiment to see what results
 you can get.

 For a better understanding of these filters, I recommend getting a book
 that discusses photographic applications of filters. Titles may mention
 filters expressly, or filters may just be a section of a book on
 photography. Check the index for the word "mired". If you find an
 explanation of the mired system, you will quickly see where your filters
 fit in the over-all pattern.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Flash Coverage for Minolta 3200xi
Date: 26 Dec 92 12:56:26 GMT

In <1992Dec23.043603.8833@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

>I just bought a Minolta 3200xi flash for my 7000i.  Now I want to
>get a wide angle lens.  The flash covers up to 28 mm but I would 
>like to get a 24mm lens. Is there any way to make up the difference
>with the flash unit?

>Any advice would be appreciated.

Back in the "old days", flashes would come with diffuser panels that
clipped over the head to give wider angle coverage.  (Now power zoom
heads are all the rage.)  You might try to get a hold of one from the
"junk bin" of a local camera shop.  If you can't find one that covers
your flash head, maybe find a cheap fresnel lens from a local surplus
shop, or experiment with other "homebrew" diffusing materials.

To attach it, you'll probably have to do some creative things with
tape, velcro, or whatever.  Then try it out with the 24mm to see what
kind of coverage you get.  Easiest thing is to take a picture of a
white wall with and without the diffuser with the 24mm lens.  See
if there is any darkening around the edges with the diffuser.  Also
watch for "hot spots" (where the flash is excessively bright).

Even if there is, it's not totally hopeless since the main subject
isn't usually at the absolute edge of the frame anyway.  Just know the
limitations (including reduced guide number--but OTF flash should take
care of that).

Actually, before you try homebrew, you might want to see if a light
modifier like the Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer will do the trick.  Some
people highly recommend this accessory anyway, and it may spread your
flash "just enough".  (Caveat emptor.)

>Gerry Palo(73237.2006@compuserve.com)

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______________________|
From: cj531@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ali Momeni)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: The 'EOS FAQ'???
Date: 3 Jan 1993 22:42:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Where can I find the so called 'EOS FAQ'???

thanks, ali.
momeni@vu-vlsi.ee.vill.edu
##
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: nigel@kathunk.phaedrav.on.ca (Nigel M Burnett)
Subject: FOR SALE:  Sakar 1.7x for Nikon
Organization: as little as possible
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:18:44 GMT

Sakar 1.7x Teleconverter for Nikon autofocus cameras.
Passes all 7 signals through the TC lens.
This is NOT a high quality piece of optics folks but it's
surprisingly good.  I paid US$75 for it.  I'll be happy to
get Cdn$50/US$40 for it (including case - not including
shipping). 
Reason for selling - finally splurged on Nikon TC16A.

Please reply to on the addresses in the .sig below - thanks.

Nigel

-- 
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of
a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.  His own
good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.   John Stuart Mill

Nigel Burnett: 78 Normandy Blvd, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4L 3K3 416-690-1834
Send e-mail to nigel@kathunk.phaedrav.on.ca or try uunet.ca!kink!kathunk!nigel
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Li Du)
Subject: Re: Tamron 90/2.5 macro
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:44:20 GMT

In article <PD.92Dec31041819@horus.sics> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.221153> duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Li Du) writes:
>>   What you have quoted above only indicates that Tamron 90/2.5
>>   performed very well in normal shooting range. It didn't say
>>   how well it performs as a macro lens.
>That is correct. Unfortunately the test did not test the macro lenses
>(there were 9 of them) in the macro range.
	Then on what base did you made your statement that the Tamron
	is the best macro lens around 100mm?
>>   There may be significant differences between a good short tele-
>>   photo lens that happens to focus down to macro range, and a
>>   good macro lens that can also be used as a short telephoto lens.
>Yes, that is why it is a little bit amazing that a lens that
>supposedly is optimized for macro is the best lens among the short
>telephotos for normal shooting.
	Do you have supporting evidence that Tamron 90/2.5 IS optimized
	for macro? It seems to me that your assesment about Tamron 90/2.5
	as a macro lens is based more on extrapolation than actual test
	data. That's the point I was quibbling about. It's a well known
	fact that superior performance in normal range does not automatically 
	guarantee optimal quality in macro range. Modern Photography tested
	Sigma 90/2.8, Tamron 90/2.5 and Tokina 90/2.5 in 1989 (June, pp 50).
	The test data showed that Tamron indeed had the best resolution among
	the three as a normal shooting lens(i.e. at 1:49 magnification),
	although the contrast was NOT the best. At macro range, however, the
	Tamron was out performed by the other two. At 1:4, Tamron was nearly
	as good as the other two. At 1:2, Sigma and Tokina were better as far
	as the numbers(resolution power) is concerned. I would not conclude
	that Tamron 90/2.5 is the best macro lens around 100mm, if I were to
	solely base my assesment on this Modern Photography tests. 
	Incidentally, Modern Photography concluded that Tokina was an excellent
	performer, and Sigma and Tamron were above-average performers. This
	pretty much means nothing if one wants to know which is the best.
>>   I would not want to use the Zeiss 85/1.4 for macro work even if I can
>>   somehow make it focus down to 1:1.
>Oh, I would. If it were the only lens I had...
	AND if image quality were not the primary concern.

---------------------------------
 Li Du | duli@prony.colorado.edu
---------------------------------
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: New question for Photo Techies
Date: 25 Dec 92 03:39:08 GMT

In <1992Dec23.160957.16737@news.th-darmstadt.de> D98O@BR1.HRZ.TH-DARMSTADT.DE (Jochen Fuehrer) writes:

>In <1992Dec23.044712.8935@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org writes:
>> 
>> Let the camera record the number of frames exposed on the film.  This way
>> you could easily unload a roll midway through, change film, then go back
>> to the original partially exposed roll and go automatically to the next
>> available unexposed frame.  The information could be recorded at the start
>> of the film on some kind of magnetic area.  The camera would update the
>> number on unloading -- of course you would want to be able to unload
>> with the tongue exposed.
>> 
>> The upshot would be nearly the equivalent of interchangeable film backs
>> for 35mm cameras.
>> 
>> Any takers?
>> 
>> Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

>I guess a pencil and a piece of paper will do the same job (at least they
>do for me) at a fraction of the cost. The only disadvantage: You have to
>push the button n times. :-)

To save myself some confusion, I just write the frame numbers on the film
leader with a "Sharpie" permanent marker.

Push the button n times?  Use the continuous wind mode, silly!  :-)

>Jochen

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: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Which lenses report focusing distance electronically?
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:03:40 GMT

In <6129@rosie.NeXT.COM> jspirer@rain.next.com (Jeff Spirer) writes:

>In article <TJWU.92Dec28153541@carbonara.mit.edu> tjwu@athena.mit.edu  
>(Thomas J Wu) writes:
>> Are Nikon's D-series lenses the only AF lenses that report focus  
>distance
>> to the camera body?  Do any Canon, Minolta, or third-party lenses do  
>this?

>Don't most autofocus point-and-shoots do this?  My understanding is that  
>they use the "flashmatic" system that controls light output by distance  
>from the camera of the subject.  This would require some sort of  
>information from the autofocus system.

Perhaps.  But most P&S cameras have a fixed flash, so the guide-number
calculations can be applied to provide a reasonable guess for what
flash output/aperture combination to use.  

I imagine most P&S cameras are designed with the assumption that print
film is the film of choice.  Modern print films, having the wide
latitude that they do, could allow P&S cameras could get away with not
having OTF metering.

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|"The Nikon lens owners are more gratingly smug, while the     |
| - | --|__ | Canon lens owners are more verbally abusive." - Tony Arnerich|
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|

Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale
From: ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (Eric Chen)
Subject: 4 Sale: Sunpak flash for Canon
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson SC
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:31:44 GMT

Sunpak 422D flash for Canon cameras:

1. Automatic flash in f2, f4, f8
2. Full power to 1/16 power switch with 1/2 increment
3. Battery power or AC charger power (external)
4. slow synchonize switch
5. vertical 0 to 90 degree
6. horizontal 360 degree
7. ASA 25 to 800
8. Flash index 100 (F*feet at ASA 100)
9. w/ wireless remote control sensor
10. changeable hotshoe (may fit other cameras for TTL flash)     

Original manual; near mint condition

Will sell it to the highest reasonable offer, please do not sent bid
lower than $60.

Eric 

Please sent E-mail for more information

(803)6548817 ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: "Signature Color" film -- what's the story?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 09:57:51 GMT

berger@atropa (Mike Berger) writes:
: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
: >With careful processing, it seems to work well.  However, I don't
: >think it's due to the superiority of the film.  (Kodak has every
: >incentive to sell good film to ordinary people, without going to
: >roundabout means such as this.)  Rather, my guess is that it's due to
: >the care that is taken with the processing and printing.
: *----
: Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the film were superior.  After
: all, it's designed for exquisite color and very substantial enlargement.

It is also designed for use in moving images. You would find, if you
examined an individual image, that the grain is no better than standard
consumer film.

Bill
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photographing people; need permission?
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:13:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24543
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <348@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:

> By the same token, the image formed on the retina of the viewer, and the
> memory of the event also are copies.  One can take the letter of the law
> too seriously.

As you just demonstrated.  I'm sure there's an ample body of law
defining just what is a copy and what isn't.  A photograph is most
certainly a copy, as is a performance of a play or musical composition.
It is most definitely not legal to perform a copyrighted play without
permission of the copyright holder, even though no permanent copy remains.

> I suppose it is now illegal to take photographs that include any buildings,
> because the design (blueprint) is copyrighted? :-)

That's an interesting question.  I don't actually know how copyright applies
to architecture.

> As far as this is to be taken as a serious legal issue, it is a very hazy
> one, that IMO should be discussed in another newsgroup, if at all.


What newsgrp is appropriate to discussing what can legally be photographed,
if not rec.photo?
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rdb1@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ronald.j.deblock..jr)
Subject: Re: Tamron 90/2.5 macro 
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:07:23 GMT

I have a manual focus Tamron 90/2.5 macro.  I use it on my Nikon N8008
and Pentax Super Program.

Images made at 1:2 are extremely sharp.  Contrast is excellent.  The overall
quality is as good as anything else I've seen.  I've seen images made
by others with Nikon and Minolta macro lenses, and the Tamron is on par
with them.

I do not know how the lens behaves at 1:1 since I do not own an extension
ring.

For general use, the Tamron is as good as my Pentax and Nikkor prime lenses
and it outperforms the zooms.  Contrast is slightly less than with my
AF Nikkor 50/1.8, but still excellent.


-- 
Ron DeBlock  rdb1@homxb.att.com  (that's a number 1 in rdb1, not letter l)
AT&T Bell Labs   Somerset, NJ  USA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ian@rats.demon.co.uk ("Ian A. Young")
Subject: Re: Zone VI 4x5 view comments ?
Reply-To: ian@rats.demon.co.uk
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.20 $
Organization: not
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:04:01 +0000

In article <1992Dec22.162352.2150@pmafire.inel.gov>
   geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) writes, amongst other things:

> Do studio photographers use wider apertures than us field types?  I'm
> wondering if that's the reason for the more precise control on studio
> cameras.  Or maybe it's more a case of ``Ahh, why not?  We don't have to
> carry it!'' ;^)

The times I have wanted geared movements (particularly geared tilts)
have mostly been when doing extreme close-ups.  I guess studio folk do
more close-ups than (most) landscape folks.

> The Carbon Infinity is up there in the price stratosphere too, isn't it?

I'm afraid it is no more.  They went bust just a couple of weeks ago. 
It seems that not enough people had that kind of money available in the
middle of a recession.  Pity.

> | Against: high cost, relatively heavy.  But then, if these are your major
> | problems, I have this second-hand Olympus XA available...  It doesn't
> | take 5x4 film though.
> 
> So, is ``5x4'' the way you British folks describe 4x5 film?  I always
> knew you lived in a backward country, driving on the wrong side of the
> road and all; perhaps this is just more evidence.  ;^)

Well, I _thought_ we did, but I just looked through my shelves and all
my boxes of film (even Ilford ones) seem to have 4x5 written on them. 
I've always said "five-four" when describing this format, though.

My Silverprint catalogue lists sheet film sizes as 5x4, though, so I'm
not completely alone.  Interestingly, the sheet silm size which has four
times the area of this is always quoted as "8x10".  Beats me...

We spell Kolour wrong, as well.

   -- Ian