HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elau@berlioz.nsc.com (Eugene Lau)
Subject: Re: TRAINING: NEW YORK INST. OF PHOTOGRAPHY?
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.120650.4724@gw.wmich.edu> x89marenger@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF ANYONE HAS TAKEN THE NEW YORK INSTITUTE OF PHOTOGRAPY
>COARSE. WOULD YOU RECOMMEND IT?
> 
>THEY ARE OFFERING THE $698 COARSE FOR ONLY $498 UNTIL JULY 31. ANY COMMENTS
>WOULD BE APPRECIATED.
>
>KEITH

I don't know how good the course is, but don't worry about the offer.  I sent
in a postcard for info, and they have since reply with at least 4 letters,
each with a price reduction on the course.  The "deadline" doesn't seem to
matter.

eugene

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hsong@ardour.bellcore.com
Subject: Re: ENLARGING 35mm/Med.format/other
Reply-To: hsong@ardour.bellcore.com
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 22:25:07 GMT

In article <16832EFAD.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
|> I was thinking of the rangefinder 6 cm by 9 cm
|> that Fuji makes.  It would probably work for taking landscapes and city
|> skylines, don't you think? 

Reconsider 6x9cm.  Usual professional labs do not carry 6x9 negative
carriers, or their automated printing setups are for 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7
only.  If you can find a lab with a 6x9 neg carrier, they will charge
you more since they consider its printing is a custom job.  It may be OK
for enlargement jobs, since enlargement is already a custom job.
6x7 is not that bad, since its actual image area is 56x68mm which is
quite close to 4x5 inch ratio that you eventually get.
The only place that you may be able to print 6x9 images properly with no
sur-charge is Fuji Anaheim Color Laboratories.  The net's story about 
this lab is not very good.  I am about to send my D/P job there and I will
find out how bad their service is.  I personally think that Fuji should
let this lab live on their own independently from Fuji like
Kodalux lives independently from Kodak.

|> The Fuji would be in the right price
|> range for me, yet will it be enough?  Would I wish that I had gotten an
|> interchangeable sytem (with lenses that cost over $1000 a piece)?
|>  
|> Rick Marquardt

If you are sure that you are not interested in portraits, Fuji's
fixed lens wide-angle cameras may be for you.   If not, you have to
buy a second medium-format camera later.  But that's not bad either,
since Fuji's rangefinder price may be even cheaper than the price of an 
interchangeable lens for others. I think that Fuji's fixed lenses are 
at least as good as others since there is no need to design a longer 
barrel than the focal length, which is quite the case for SLRs.

	Hugh
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: print protection
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:33:40 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


Tyrus Monson writes:
> 
>  You may stack prints with interleaving tissue to protect them from
>  scratches, or you may store prints in polyethylene sleeves.
>  The materials are sold by various sources - I get mine from
>  a company named Light Impressions.


Funny how people from out-of-town know more about this town than city folk.

Although I have been buying books from Light Impressions for over twenty
years, I didn't know about their archival materials until I called the
Smithsonian about eight years ago to ask where they obtained their supplies.
They mentioned you-know-who.

The reason I mention this is that after you visit the International Museum
of Photography at George Eastman House here, you have to stop at Light
Impressions which is just five minutes away.  You have to check
their specials:  several years I picked up sixteen issues of the journal
History of Photography for only $25, and they were over ten years old.
And a couple years ago they were getting rid of cases of 8x10 archival
mounting board for only $5 per case (normally around $5 per 25 boards).
They also have on hand many items that are slightly damaged for very
reduced prices.

Order their catalog, if you are not familiar with them.  They are also a
mail-order house.



eugene kowaluk
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: bad experience with FotoCell
Organization: LA&W RR
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 13:51:15 GMT

In article <84542@netnews.upenn.edu> yee@mipgsun.mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:

>For that matter, what about their "reviews"?  First of all, they do
>not test a statistically significant number of units.  Second, they
>are not exactly unbiased; all the major camera equipment outfits
>advertise in Pop Photo.  Pop Photo's best interests lie in keeping
>them happy.  When I used to read Pop (and Mod) Photo, I noticed that
>they never (or hardly ever) gave bad reviews.

>To be fair, I have the same complaints about a lot of magazines.


It is common practice in magazines which review products, to not print a
review of a product which they find to be "less than adequate".  In
other words, if they test a product and it turns out to be a piece of
junk, they never publish the review.  They don't want to tick off their
biggest advertisers.
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: a question about Velvia
Date: 29 Jul 92 06:41:34 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Jul28.122147.19913@fy.chalmers.se>, f88mattb@fy.chalmers.se (Mattias Bryntesson) writes:

> I've never had any problem with bad colors with Kodachrome, so this
> is a new issue!

I have. Every time I've tried Kodachrome. The real answer to this is
of course that "good colors" is a very subjective thing. I think my
Kodachrome has been properly processed each time as the rolls more or
less looks the same. In spite of that, I've never liked the results.
The contrast is much too high. The colors are muted and wrong and at the
same time too bright in some sense. Especially skin colors and foliage
looks wrong on Kodachrome. It is as if there was a layer of something
(silver?) over the image. I liked the results of Kodachrome 25 much
better than those of Kodachrome 64, but they still weren't good enough.
Ektachrome 64 and 100 Plus were my favourite films for a long time until Fuji
came out with their current series of slide films -- Fujichrome 50 and
Fujichrome 100. Velvia was an added bonus that I also found to have a
very high resolution and a good sharpness. Its skin colors are awful,
though. For those images I use Fujichrome 50.

> In spite of this I'll switch to Velvia myself, my lab
> does E6 all day so you can get your test shots and final shots on the
> same day. (Theoretically, I'm not that fast ;-) Kodachrome must be
> sent to Stockholm (or is it Bruxelles?) from here...

It's in Stockholm (I live close to the lab). Push processing is done in
Bruxelles, though.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John)
Subject: Re: SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT ISSUE: What Camera/lens?
Keywords: Nikon  BZZZZZZ! It's a Canon.
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 17:37:34 GMT

In <6#jm43-.hchong@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:

>From article <1992Jul24.161008.14963@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, by chucksi@stc.comm.mot.com (Chuckorama):
>> Kind of a weird question, but if anyone out there has seen any of the Sports
>> Illustrated videos of their swimsuit issue phoography shoots, I was curious 
>> what cameras (My guess: F1) and more particularly what lens (some of them were
>> HUGE) it looked like they were using...I'm sort of a rookie to photography, but
>> I love the contrast and clarity of the pictures, and the way the backgrounds
>> were clear, but flat.

>This was discussed a long time ago in this group when HBO first showed 
>the video.  I think the lens was a "regular" 300/2.8ED AF!  What F1?
>[flame on] No pro would be caught dead with anything but a Nikon [flame off].
>I think it was a Nikon F4s. 


Well if you are talking about the February 11, 1991 issue of Sports
Illustrated (the girl in the white swimsuit with the shadowline
following her breast), that shot was with a Canon EOS 1 with the
EF50mm f/1.0 lens. (Source- Canon CPS Professional Services Update,
Special Edition 1992)

You see, the world doesn't always belong to Nikon.

-- 
#############################################################
# Scaramento Public Access UNIX     sactoh0.SAC.CA.US       #  
#  (916) 649-0161, 722-6516 & 722-5068    E-Mail & USENET   #
################## default .signature file ##################
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Pentax 67 -- lenses w/shutters
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John)
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:40:04 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: msus

Has anyone found lenses for the Pentax 67 with
integral shutter (and perhaps X synch?)

BTW -- now making adaptors for 67 to attach
good, flat-field enlarging lenses w bellows.
any other market for these or am i reinventing
the wheel?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: klee@wsl.dec.com (Ken Lee)
Subject: Re: Olympus XA ( was Re: Contax T2 )
Reply-To: klee@wsl.dec.com
Organization: DEC Western Software Laboratory
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 17:34:17 GMT

|> Before everybody jumps on the flame war, just remember that there were many
|> different models of the Olympus XA made.  I personally don't know much of
|> anything about the line, but I do know that some of the models are considered
|> to be top-notch, with really nice lens quality.  These models fetch several
|> hundred dollars on the used market, i believe.  The other models were
|> are considered to be of mediocre quality.  So, I imagine both the person who
|> thought the lens quality was good, and the person who thought it wasn't so good
|> were both right.

The only model worth considering is the original Olympus XA, with its true
rangefinder focusing.  The others (XA1, XA2, etc.) have much simpler and less
accurate focusing systems.

-- 
Ken Lee
DEC Western Software Laboratory, Palo Alto, Calif.
Internet: klee@wsl.dec.com
uucp: uunet!decwrl!klee
From: SPW103@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Yashica T4
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:50:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92206.105039SPW103
Organization: Penn State University

In article <5360763@hplsla.hp.com>, andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino) says:
>
>But, you should know, the Olympus Stylus has a poor repair record. They have
>a great propensity for jamming when the camera is closed.
>

Could we have some details on this, such as who says they are prone to
"jamming" and what do you mean by "jamming" What jams?

                             -Stephen Walker
                              Penn State University
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: John Horn <jhorn@arco.com>
Subject: Re: B&W enlarger advice
Organization: ARCO E&P Technology
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1a2
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:49:20 GMT

Just for reference -- I bought a Beseler 23CII for $260 w/ lens & neg
carrier, earlier this year. Got it at a local (Dallas area) camera store
that does quite a bit of used equipment.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: troby@diana.cair.du.edu (Thorn Roby)
Subject: Re: Novice 4x5 field gear questions
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 21:43:11 GMT

Regarding a dark cloth - when I'm hiking, I just drape my parka
over myself + my Speed - not elegant, and requires some fiddling,
but its one less thing to carry. Regarding loupe - check your lenses,
you may have one that will work ( I use a 50mm Nikkor backwards).
Carrying lenses - I use 3" floppy boxes or similar, with lens caps
or reasonable facsimile, inside plastic bag. Protection is probably
marginal, depends on what you're packing in. I've also built some
ensolite boxes for my Speed and other heavy things, for when I need
to pack things on top of each other.
-- 

Thorn Roby                              troby@diana.cair.du.edu
CARL Systems, Inc.                               troby@carl.org   
3801 E. Florida Ave.,Suite D300,Denver, CO 80210 (303) 758-3030
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: monson@humpback.ECE.ORST.EDU (Tyrus Monson)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:23:36 GMT

In article <PHR.92Jul27114934@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
  (lots deleted)
>union (though I think anyone can join ASMP).
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	       Nope. In my experience, they
	       are very picky about who is
	       admitted to membership.
	       Curious, because it costs them
	       revenue.
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: EV units
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:25:05 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <Brt6un.1Ey@solbourne.com> tls@solbourne.com (Tom Schreur) writes:
>Howdy,
>
>Could someone help to refresh my memory.  
>
>It is my understanding that EV is a measure of light, not related in anyway
>to ASA/ISO (ie. for a given EV the exposure will change as one changes the
>ASA on a light meter).  
>
>The reason I'm asking is I have an OLD Vivitar light meter.  When this meter
>is set to EV 1 the exposure reading is always 1 sec. @ f 1.0 no matter what
>the ASA setting.  

Your meter is right, you have been deceived by advertising copywriters for
camera manufacturers who say "EV -1" when they mean "EV -1 at ISO 100".

The definition of EV is:

	EV = log2(A^2/T)

	Where A = f/number of the aperture
	      T = Exposure time in seconds.

Nothing there about film speed, light level or anything else. It just
refers to a given amount of *exposure*, regardless of how bright
the light is or how fast the film is. EV1 *is* 1sec@f/1, or 2 sec@f/1.4,
or 4sec@f/2,... - no matter what the luminance or the film speed are.
That's why it's an "Exposure Value" and not an "Illumination Value".
An EV value is just a convenient way to refer to "all possible combinations
of apertures and shutter speeds that produce a given exposure". You *can*
calculate the illumination from the EV and the ISO film speed using the 
following equation (courtesy of donl mathis ...well, I rearranged the
equation to solve for luminance ;-)):

	B = S/(K*2^EV)
where
	EV = exposure value.
	B = Field luminence.
	S = ISO/ANSI film speed (e.g. 100)
	K = exposure constant (reflected light); the luminance units
	    which B must be expressed in must be identified for any
	    given K value to be meaningful since B and K change
	    proportionally.

	If B is in candelas/meter^2, K=12.5 or thereabouts.
		   footlamberts,     K=3.65
		   candelas/ft^2     K=1.30

This is derived from the ANSI standard for calibrating light meters, BTW.

Steve
From: cenkl@mitre.org (Michal Cenkl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Recommendation: Nikon AF75-300 vs Sigma 75-300AP
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:00:02 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA.


Does anyone have experience with either of these lenses?
I am trying to decide which to buy. I have an 8008s.

	(1) Nikon 75-300 4.5-5.6 $496
	(2) Sigma 75-300 AP 4.4-(?) $329


Thanks,
-mike cenkl@linus.mitre.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: EOS zoom lens recommendations
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 07:23:27 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <sfleisch.712202065@hydra>, sfleisch@convex.com (Steve Fleischman) writes:

> Concerning the 20-35mm zoom:
> 
> The sigma has a permanent metal lens hood (actually "fins"). They prevent
> the user of filter holders like Cokin's.  Also the filter size for sigma
> is 77mm versus 72 for the Tokina.  That means that filters for the
> sigma lens are more expensive and slightly harder to find.  On the
> other hand,  I wonder about vignetting with the 72mm filter size.
> I have the sigma 21-35 and have seen vignetting with the polarizing
> filter.

Canon's 20-35mm/2.8L lens uses 72mm filters. I haven't heard of anyone
who has had vignetting problems with that lens with Canon's polarizer
attached. Of course, thicker polarizers may give some vignetting.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT ISSUE: What Camera/lens?
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:36:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul31.183649.7186
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <-xqmyva.hchong@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>From article <KRAZYKID.92Jul30171713@pub2.nntp-read.bu.edu>, by krazykid@pub2.nntp-read.bu.edu (Ernest Kim):
>> In article <1992Jul30.204618.20171@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>> 
>>>In article <n2pmqs=.hchong@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>> You see, the world doesn't always belong to Nikon.
>>>>
>>>>Oh yeah?  I got one for you.  Canon cameras are made of plastic (so I was
>>>>told). 
>> 
>>>So are bullet proof windows....:-)
>> 
>>>Gary
>> 
>>Oh what the heck.  But the windows are at least a couple of inches
>>thick.  :)
>
>So, assuming that both the bullet proof windows and Canon bodies and made
>of the same plastic (which I doubt), then a 35mm Canon has to be 
>6"x10"x8" (thickness x width x height)!  But darn, it is still very light! 

It is the same stuff (a polycarbonate), I can't figure how you got your
measurement though.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: mingos@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: lens protection
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:52:03 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <1992Jul30.110555.20871@news.lrz-muenchen.de>, dranidis@informatik.uni-muenchen.de (Dimitris Dranidis) writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.205328.22023@news2.cis.umn.edu> weiss@epx.cis.umn.edu ()  
> writes:
>> A professional photographer has suggested that I NOT place a skylight filter
>> onto my new APO 100-300mm f4 zoom.
>> He contends that doing so will degrade the lens performance and that the
>> coating already on the lens should be sufficiently resistant to damage.
> 
> He may be right about the performance. But about damages...a scratch on the  
> filter will cost nothing compared to a scratch on the lens. I am not a  
> professional, and therefore I only have one lens (not a bag of them). I feel  
> better when I'm sure the lens is kept undamaged, while the quality of photos  
> may be not optimal. If I had a lot of lenses, I might also not care.
> 
> Dimitris
> --

   It also depends what sort of insurance you've got on your lenses.  If it
covers accidental damage to the lens coating on a 'new lens for old' basis, and 
you don't mind insurance forms, or waiting for repairs AND you're that worried 
about lens performance, then I'd say forget the skylight filter.
   I'll bet your pro friend has got adequate insurance, or can at least claim  
a damaged lens against tax (depends on your tax laws, I guess).

   In most cases, unless you're THAT critical, I doubt if you'd really notice
the difference between filtered and non-filtered photo's  (except for the colour shift, of
course).  If there's a case where it might give a noticeable effect - shooting 
into the sun for example(?) - you can always take the filter off. It's too
late to think about putting the filter ON once you've scratched the lens.  
   
    Gavin
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT ISSUE: What Camera/lens?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 15:48:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <1992Jul27.141634.5640@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, by faust@bagels.enet.dec.com (Stephen R Faust):
> 
> In article <6#jm43-.hchong@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes...
>> 
>> ....
>>
>>[flame on] No pro would be caught dead with anything but a Nikon [flame off].
>>I think it was a Nikon F4s. 
>> 
> 
> Funny you mention that. I was wondering why Sports Illustrated was hiring
> amatuers for their most important issue of the year. The photographers were
> getting anywhere from $2000 to over $5000 per day, over a 30-45 day period.
> I know for example Walter Issos uses Cannon equipment, and shoots for Time,
> Newsweek, National Geographic, etc, etc.. There was also Minolta being used
> by another high paying AMATUER (cant remember his name though, but its in the
> video). Another guy from Italy or Europe was also using Cannon F1's.
> In all, I think there was about 7 photographers. Off the bat, 3 were not using
> Nikon. You're 40% wrong already!
> 
> Why did you post this??

You obviously don't understand the implication of the phrase [flame on]!
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Eye Dominancy (Was: Left-eye vs. Right-eye)
Keywords: left eye, right eye...
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:18:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul22.181810.13383
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Jul21.193230.26575@cs.UAlberta.CA> rodney@cs.UAlberta.CA (Rodney Gitzel) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.173326.3652@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mgsellma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Gsellman) writes:
>>
>>...take a piece of paper, cut out a hole about the size of a quarter in the 
>>middle of the sheet.  Then look at an object with both eyes open, like you 
>>normally would.  Hold the paper out in front of you while still looking at the 
>>object.  When you get the object in the hole, slowly bring the paper to your 
>>eye and you should end up with the hole over one of your eyes.  (ALLWAYS KEEP 
>>BOTH EYES OPEN)
>
>Hmmm.  The hole (or, my fingertip, actually) ends up at my right eye.
> Does that mean the right is dominant?  Does it make sense, by the dominancy
> theory, that I use my left eye for photography?  

It means that you are right eye dominant, and should be using your right eye,
but I have have seen people use the opposite of their dominate eye.  My
brother for instance is right eye dominate, but he sites a rifle with his
left eye, because no one had ever told him that he should use his right. So
he sort of forced himself to learn to use his undominate left eye, over the
years and now he thinks using his dominate right eye feels weird.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikon 70-210 f4 vs. Sigma APO 70-210 f3.5 ????
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:46:00 GMT
Reply-To: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

I do not own either lens.  However, my trainig and experience has taught
me a general rule:  Stick to the original manufacturer's products when
buying lenses.  Chances are, the resulting picture won't show off the
difference between camera bodies, but it will definitely show the difference
between a good lens and an inferior lens.  The difference becomes even
more apparent in an autofocus system.

Many have agreed with this approach, stating that true cost of the aftermarket
lens is equal to

    Price of         Personal sale      Price of              Intangible
    of aftermarket - price of         + genuine             + cost of
    Lens             aftermarket lens   lens (higher later)   Poorer pix



   /|/| /||)|/  /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~   |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
  / | |/ ||\|\  \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_|  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======
Newsgroups: rec.photo