HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Expansion cards for Minolta 7xi camera
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:50:13 GMT
Organization: I is a writur

sanjiv@cse.unl.edu (Sanjiv K. Bhatia) writes:

>I have recently bought a Minolta Maxxum 7xi camera and have been thinking of
>buying some expansion cards.  In particular, I have been looking at the cards
>for travel, portrait, and fantasy effects.

I don't know about the fantasy card, since that's not my schtick, but as far
as most of the other effect/preset cards, they're basically a waste of time
and money. Having talked to a number of Minolta owners (and a couple of
Minolta reps on various issues, like why the close-up card can't do macro
work decently), most of the cards like travel, portrait and etc are little
more than crutches for lazy/naive users. Half an hour thinking through
aperture/shutter tradeoffs will do for you what all thsoe cards do, without
having to remember to swap them around. 

I own three cards with my 7xi, and they're the only three I feel are worthy
of considering: the programming card, so I can reset some of the camera
functions like turning off the pop-up flash; the bracketing card (which is
useful only if you shoot slide film, really); and the multi-spot exposure
card, which lets you get a better handle on really weird contrast
situations. I probably use the bracketing most of the three, and rarely now
that I'm shooting mostly Ektar again. 

When I had my 5000i, I had most of the cards. They got used just long enough
to figure out what they were doig to the programming, and when I realized I
could do what the cards did better, faster and easier simply myself, they
went on a shelf. 

-- 
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= Member, SFWA
  chuq@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ =+= Editor, OtherRealms
	A real SF writur with stories in ALTERNATE KENNEDYS and THE 
	  FURTHER ADVENTURES OF BATMAN, in better bookstores now!

          Painted emblems of a race, all accurst in days of yore,
       Each from his accustomed place steps into the world once more.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: konkkola@jyu.fi (Markku Konkkola)
Subject: Re: Photograping Whales [8008s autofocus p
Reply-To: konkkola@jyu.fi
Organization: University of Jyvskyl, Finland
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:07:35 GMT

In article 92Sep1111103@horus.sics.se, pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.053347.27068@cello.hpl.hp.com> jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
> 
> 
> With a Canon USM lens you can manually adjust the focus even if the
> lens is in AF mode. You press the shutter down halfway and if you
> don't like what the AF thinks should be in focus, you can quickly
> twist the focusing ring manually and take the picture.
> 
> The Canon EOS RT (and perhaps also the EOS 10) can be customized to

At least EOS 1, 10 and 100 can use this way.

> use a separate button for initiating AF. This means that you can let
> the camera set the focus automatically and then leave it at that
> position for every following shot.
> --
> Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
> Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN



---
Markku K|nkk|l{   Computing Centre of Jyv{skyl{ University   Jyv{skyl{, Finland
Markku Knkkl   Computing Centre of Jyvskyl University   Jyvskyl, Finland

E-mail: konkkola@jyu.fi        phone: +358-41-603594        fax: +358-41-603611
===============================================================================

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: Advise on telephoto zoom lenses
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 12:37:26 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <BtnsL4.I5B@acsu.buffalo.edu>, tklai@acsu.buffalo.edu (Tobysze K. Lai) writes:

> 	I am looking for a mid-price telephoto zoom lens for my Canon EOS
> camera.  There are few choices in my mind now:
> 
> 	Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6
> 	Sigma AF 70-210 f/4-5.6 APO
> 	Sigma AF 75-300 f/4-5.6 DL

Unless you really need the 75-100mm range, I think you should consider
the 100-300mm/4.5-5.6 USM lens as well. It costs more than the EF 75-300
lens, but you get better optics for the money.


-- 
------------------------------ END OF MESSAGE ------------------------------
Robert Claeson                Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                         robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                             CEO: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com:dg-smtp
S-164 93 KISTA                     Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
Sweden                             Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: monson@ece.orst.edu (Ty Monson)
Subject: Re: Kodak Slide Stack Loader: good?
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:25:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.015534.17281@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> wjh@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (william.j.hery) writes:
>>Kodak is offering an acessory stack loader for their Ektagraphic projectors.
>>Does this gadget work well?
>>Does it work with the Carousel projectors as well?
>
>I've had a Kodak EC stack loader for a Carousel projector for about 10-12
>years. Even from the start, virtually every stack of 36 slides I put 
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>through it jams on at least one slide (most slides are Kodak processed by
           ^^^^^^
>Kodak/Kodalux). I'm not sure if mine is just defective, whether they are
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>all like that, or if they have improved the design since then. I don't
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  
  Yours must be defective. Don't know if that's a manufacturing mistake
  or a design problem, though.
  Mine is 8 years old (more or less) and it works very well. Cardboard
  mounts with rough edges can cause problems, but I have run many 
  hundreds of Kodak-mounted slides through my EC loader (literally
  thousands of feeds) and I get no where near your jam rate. I regard
  the loader as quite reliable. And it is a mighty fast way to search
  through large volumes of slides.

>use the loader for shows, but it is handy for personal previewing of slides.
 (Bell & Howell comments deleted)

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: San Jose, CA Photo Fair 8/29-8/30
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 04:29:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: CA

From article <b8dnc+h.badboy@netcom.com>, by badboy@netcom.com (Jay Keller):
> There will be a Photographic Swap meet tomorrow (Saturday 8/29) and the day
> after at the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds in San Jose.
>  
> I believe it starts at 10 AM (it could be 11, look in the classified section
> of the newspaper).

Could somebody look and see if it is 10 or 11?  I don't have the paper.
Thanks. 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Rechargable type of lithium batteries?
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:53:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Sep2.035825.24465@gordian.com> johnk@gordian.com (John Kalucki) writes:
>The 6006S is infamous for killing its batteries. PopPhoto has had
>several articles about it. I've blown through a number of batteries
>in the year that I've had the 6006S. Things to mitigate the hemmorage:
>
>	Be sure the battery is seated correctly! I've seen this mentioned
>		in several places. Not sure the problem, but on I think
>		the Canon(?) had a problem with the battery discharging if
>		not seated firmly.

I conjecture that the problem is that when power first comes on, the
camera goes though a big power-up sequence, self checking, verifying
that various analog metering circuits are doing reasonable things,
checking whether it is loaded or not, and if it is, what frame it is
at, etc.  If the battery is not seated well, it does this with every
jiggle of the battery.

  -- David Jacobson
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shoppa@erin.caltech.edu (TIM SHOPPA)
Subject: Re: The quality of Nikon "E" lenses?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.135000.2152@brandonu.ca>, swayzed@brandonu.ca writes...
>In article <1992Aug21.122441.29724@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, yz@broca.acc.virginia.edu (Yuan Zhang) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug21.133300.1@cc.helsinki.fi> mlindholm@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>>> 
>>>     Are the Nikon E-series lenses inferior in some way to the standard
>>>     Nikon manual focus lenses (e.g. the AI-series)?
>>> 
>>>     Mikko.Lindholm@cc.helsinki.fi 
>>> The Nikon "E" series lenes were supposed to be a cheaper alternative and more  
>> of a mass market lenes to the Nikkor lenes. The quality is okay. But they are  
>> definitly not as durable as the Nikkor lenes. Plus they usually have fewer  
>> connectors than the Nikkor AI lenes.
> 
>True, there are constructed of more plastic and less metal, however, they still
>contain that famous Nikon glass. It depends on the lens. Some, like the standard
>50 mm aren't that great but there are some others that are very sharp. You will
>find that they also don't all have that 'Nikon feel' to them. 
> 
>David Swayze        | SWAYZED@BrandonU.CA    | Reading furnishes the mind only
	I believe that the construction of the E-series lenses (plastic)
allows more tolerance for misalignment of the component optics than the
standard (metal) lenses.  The extent of aberrations in E-series lenses
seem to vary a lot.  I have 2 E-series lenses (the 50mm and the 135mm) which
seem to be in excellent alignment.  I would recommend testing E-series lenses
with some slow-speed slide film before buying them - I have tested 50 mm's
which have much worse aberrations than the one I have, and I have never
found a 28mm E-series I have been happy with (that's OK, I ended up with
a 28mm Nikkor.)  I have tried out
several 135's and they all seemed to be pretty good.  The 135 that I use
is really very wonderful!

						Tim (Shoppa@erin.caltech.edu)
From: allana@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Allan Armstrong)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:23:11 GMT
Subject: Re: portrait lenses: 35mm-Format.
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo

Everyone seems to be talking about portraits with f2.8 or so. I thought
that portrait photographers bought those expensive 85mm f1.2s and f1.4s
in order to get shallow depth of field. Is f2.8 really adequate?

Allan
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mcvey@mpr.ca (Iain McVey)
Subject: Pushing Kodak Ectapress
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 01:01:25 GMT

I just got some Ektapress 100 and 400 professional and was going to try
shooting some rolls at their pushed speeds.

Anything to watch out for?

- Iain -
-- 
Iain McVey (mcvey@mpr.ca)    | Kodachrome, gives us those nice, bright colours,
Software Designer            | Gives the greens of summers,
MPR Teltech Ltd.             | Makes you think all the world's a sunny day.
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC | - Paul Simon
From: mqd1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MAURICE Q. DADOUN)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Info. about the Sigma 28-70/f 3.5-4.5
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:54:49 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

I have just get a 28-70 mm/f 3.5-4.5 from Sigma and I am not happy at all
about the sharpness of my pictures (I have a 8008s).
Does this lens has a bad reputation that I don't know?
Is this due to a mistake from me? (I have to say that I used a 400 iso roll).

Thanks for your comments, Maurice
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rmmchlsk@leland.Stanford.EDU (robert michalski)
Subject: Nikon cameras for sale
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 16:10:05 GMT


Nikon cameras for sale

I have two camera bodies for sale:

N8008 for $400 or best offer

N2020 for $225 or best offer.

If you want one of these cameras, I'm also willing to sell a Nikon 50mm 1.8f
autofocus lens and Tiffen Haze 1 filter for $60.  
(I'm not interested in selling the lens without selling one of the cameras.)
Buyer pays postage.

Thanks,
Rob
rmmchlsk@leland.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs)
Subject: Re: Slide indexing ideas(?)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:52:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.232648.26176@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm) writes:
>	I don't necessarily want the name of a particular piece of
>	software here, I would just like to hear suggestions on how to 
>	index large numbers of slides.  i.e. cataloging.
>
>	Would you use:    i)   year-month-roll#-frame#
>		          ii)  year-month-image#
>                          iii) roll#-frame#-year
>
>	What do YOU do ?
>
This is a VERY subjective area, and many people have their own favorite
ways of cataloging.  For what it's worth, here is my method, and it works
for me:

Immediately after processing and mounting my slides, I label them with the
roll number and frame number, such as "203 01".  I have a 6-digit rubber
stamp (with 6 rotating bands, like a date stamper) which makes it look 
neat; of course you could write it by hand.  I also use a rubber date 
stamp to mark the date the slide was taken, the exact date if I can
remember, or at least the month and year.

The slides are stored in Logan model 200 metal slide files.  In this model
the slides are stacked as close as possible together, and it can hold 750.
The other models, with plastic inner pieces, or the kind that separate
the slides, are useless for storage of large numbers of slides.  I can
pick up a bunch of slides, and plunk them right into my stack loader and
view/review them easily.

FINDING a particular slide is another matter.  Many years ago I started
making contact proof sheets of my slides on positive paper, but I got so
far behind that I'll probably never catch up.  I am planning to put them
on a computer data base with enough information (date, roll & frame #,
general subject matter, specific subject matter) to get me close to the
right roll.  

Having the roll and frame number on the slide is a great advantage,
because that becomes a unique "ID Number" for that slide.  If I have
occasion to pull slides out of the storage file for a slide show or 
printing, I always know where to store them again.  If I make a print from
a slide, the slide number goes on the back of the print.  If I make a
color slide from a color negative, I label the new slide number as well
as the negative from which it was taken:  202 21
                                         N194 19
which means slide roll 202 frame 21, taken from negative roll 194
frame 19.

My negatives files are in better shape.  For these I have made contact
proof sheets of each roll, and each roll is numbered and dated on the
negative preserver sheet.  My favorite is Print File style 35-7B, which
holds 7 5-frame strips; fits perfectly in a 3-ring binder and 35 frames
fit on an 8x10 sheet of paper.  It is easy to find a particular negative
by just looking thru the proof sheets.

----------========== Political Science is an Oxymoron ==========----------

Ron Speirs, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bullis@polari.online.com
Subject: Re: Grainy B&W film?
Reply-To: uunet!polari!bullis
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:54:20 GMT

jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:

>If Kodak 2475 Recording Film is on the way out, what else does that leave
>us?  Ilford HP5 has nothing like the grain structure of 2475; how does Fuji
>Neopan 1600 compare?

IS 2475 to be discontinued?  It wouldn't surprise me at all, but it makes
me very sad.  It is a truly great film with what the newer films have so
little of -- versatility.  Kodak has discontinued most of their films that
I found truly interesting, along with their best paper.  I still have a roll
of Royal X Pan in the freezer.

Do tell me it isn't true!

Larry		reply to: larryb@kimbro.uucp

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sgccpgs@citec.oz.au (Paul Salanitri)
Subject: Re: Nikon FG (? info wanted)
Organization: CITEC
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:23:19 GMT

What is the difference between an FG and an FG-20, I know the latter is
slightly newer, but is it a super set, at does it lack some features that
the FG has?????


--

==========================================================================
 Paul Salanitri                               sgccpgs@citec.oz.au
  P.O. Box 12702, Elizabeth Street, Brisbane QLD 4002, AUSTRALIA
   Committee for the Liberation and Intergration of Terrifying 
         Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society
             E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.  
==========================================================================
From: hamish@netcom.com (Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 1 day photo trips from San Jose, CA
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:32:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Pandemonia PLC

In article <1992Sep3.045642.17113@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>In article <355@biosys.apldbio.COM> mpc@apldbio.com (Morgan Conrad) writes:
<>My favorite, lesser known 1 day trip around San Jose is to head
>>up Mt. Hamilton [...]
<>
>>Basically, there's tons of stuff - the coast, the mountains,
<>and the foothills - my two suggestions are in the latter.
>>
<Not knowing what the requester means by nature it is hard
>to name a location.  I often go to San Francisco and shoot
<what I consider nature pictures as defined by me.
>
<The Golden Gate Park offers pleny of photo opportunties
>for me. [...]

I'd like to second this suggestion - with the added advantage that if
you do drive North you get not only the Park, but the Marin Headlands
(beautiful... IMO), Muir Woods (not bad for all sorts of trees and
flora if you can cope with the tourists), Mt Tamalpais, Bolinas (and
other beach / coast locations).  A bit much for one day, perhaps, but
there's a lot there....

	Hamish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Reid   +1 510 596-3917   hamish@netcom.com   hamish@sybase.com
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: T-Max Films
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:24:00 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992


 >     I am one of the most meticulous processors you will ever meet but I
 > prefer a machine when it comes to Tmax. It is to picky for hand
 > processing.

  Yeah, that's the problem with T-Max films....they're much more finicky than 
the old standards Tri-X and HP5. Really bad news for a rank beginner or a
"relaxed" practitioner, or someone who has to process film on the run.
  Sil appeared to imply that those who have problems with T-Max films don't
know what they're doing, which is definitely wrong. The reason many don't use 
T-Max is that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

                                           jbh

---
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photo-CD - THE FACTS
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:51:35 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida


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!

rcoadh@kultarr.co.rmit.oz.AU (Alexander Doktorovich) writes:
: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
: 
: >Next question: "What is the resolution of the highest resolution image?"
: >Answer: "3072 X 2048", 24 bit color.  Yeehaaa!!!!!

3072 x 2048 is *great* for a computer, but compared even to the lowly
35mm format, it amounts to only 85.33 pixels/mm in the 24mm x 36mm frame.
Since a "line" is 2 pixels wide (including the space between) this is only
42.67 lines/mm.

: What is the effective spatial and colour resultions of Kodacolour 100?

I just tried to look this up and couldn't find the numbers for Kodacolor
Gold 100.  However, Kodacolor Gold 400 resolves 100 lines/mm!  In fact,
practically every 35mm film on the market outresolves Photo CD.  Here are
some examples of *low* resolution films (the lowest I could find numbers for):

film		resolving power
-------------------------------
Ektachrome 400		80 l/mm
Ektachrome P800/1600	63-80 l/mm, depending on EI
Ektar 1000		80 l/mm
Ektapress Gold 1600	80 l/mm
High Speed Infrared	80 l/mm
Ektachrome Infrared	63 l/mm
Scotchchrome 1000	67 l/mm
Scotchcolor 400		85 l/mm

Those are the really bad ones.  On the other extreme, there are films like:

film		resolving power
-------------------------------
Technical Pan		320 l/mm
Tmax 100		200 l/mm
Velvia			160 l/mm
Ektar 25		160 l/mm

Most films (including practically everything you can buy in a supermarket)
fall in between, at about 100-125 l/mm.

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.

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.

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!

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

Jay Ts
From: honna@cs.concordia.ca (SEGEL honna)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Inrared Photog (was: ...+ Spider Webs)
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:30:00 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

In article <cHl-NG#@engin.umich.edu> Robert.Drongowski@cc.umich.edu (Robert Drongowski) writes:
>I know one must take extreme measures in handling the film (refrigerated,
>absolutely no light while loading/unloading film, etc).

>BOB DRONGOWSKI,  Ann Arbor, Michigan
 
On the subject of film-handling... A friend of a friend once recently
handed me a film cannister he had kept for eons in his fridge.  It turns
out to be infra-red film with the usual warnings about "absolute darkness"
printed on the cannister.  Trouble is, when he handed it to me he very 
non-chalantly popped open the cannister to show me that there was, in fact,
a roll of film inside.  So, now I would like to know if there is any chance
that the film has any useful life left in it.  Should I bother rolling it 
through my camera?  How do I know what kind of infra-red film it is - 
assuming that there is more than one kind?  How will I know what processing
it needs if I can't look at the cassette? etc.

HS / Michael

-- 
***************************************************************
honna segel
department of computer science
concordia university  *****************************************
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: fjcppr@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Leica Lenses
Reply-To: fjcppr@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:08:19 GMT

No Leica M-series lens focuses closer than about 28 inches. 
Xref: sparky rec.photo:15127 alt.cd-rom:2846 gnu.misc.discuss:2807 misc.int-property:895