HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: More Medium Format Questions?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:17:00 GMT

Thorn Roby (troby@diana.cair.du.edu) wrote:

: Cheap medium format rangefinders: small Speed Graphics, later

Gee, that brings back memories.  I used to use a Speed Graphic back in
high school, when I first started fooling around with 4x5.  What a wonderful
camera!  Wish I still had one... <sigh>

I only own 35mm now, but prefer 4x5 because of the time it takes to set
up and compose the picture, plus the fact that there's only so many
film holders that you can carry, forces me to be a lot more careful
what (and when) I shoot.  Forces me to take my time with composition and
lighting, rather than blow off a lot of 35mm frames hoping to get a "good"
picture.
-- 
Ed Carp			erc@apple.com, erc@saturn.upl.com	801/538-0177

Who and what would you be if you went beyond your deepest fears?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dancook@eskimo.com (Daniel Cook)
Subject: Question on Photo-CD and CD-ROM
Organization: =>ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE, WA.<=
Distribution: rec.photo
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:17:38 GMT


Dear rec.photo:
This is my first post to this newsgroup, so please forgive
me if this topic has been hashed-over before. The question is
this:  instead of plopping down $500 for Kodak's combination
CD/Photo-CD player along with Photo-CD development charges,
is there software available so that persons with a IBM-clone
PC can read a Kodak Photo-CD if they have a CD-ROM player
hooked to the computer already?
1.) If so, what is the name(s) of the available software.
2.) If no, is there software planned for the future to do this,
    or has Kodak set the Photo-CD standard somehow that only
    commercially-produced Photo-CD players will be able to read
    the discs?
Any responses should ideally be sent to my e-mail address unless
the discussion is new and the whole of rec.photo would benefit.
Thanks in advance for all responses. Take care
Dan Cook, Kirkland, WA
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Can Rolleiflex Selenium meters be fixed?
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:00:51 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

The old Rolleiflex TLRs often had built-in selenium cell
light meters- great because they never needed batteries- bad
because they weren't that sensitive.  Something about the Rolleis
was that you always had everything you needed... all in one camera.
But what happens once that meter goes bad- varying by 2 or 3 f-stops,
unpredictably?  Can repair shops fix the meters, or is the user stuck
using a hand-held?

	Dave

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: kfitzsim@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Kevin Fitzsimons)
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Film Flatness
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:43:12 GMT

In article <327@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>
>Today I was talking with a local professional photographer who has many
>years of experience.  He was using Hasselblad cameras, but switched to
>Pentax 6x7.  I was curious why, and asked him if he had compared the
>sharpness of the Pentax and Zeiss lenses.  He told me that the images he
>got on film with his Pentax were much sharper, and that the Hasselblad
>was "no match" for it.
>
>He cited two reasons for this.  First, the 6x7 format requires less cropping,
>and therefore less enlargement, than the 6x6 format.  But he seemed to feel
>that a much greater factor was in the cameras' pressure plates, because
>120 roll film, by itself, just isn't very flat.  If the film isn't flat
>during exposure, then the quality of the lenses is less of an issue.
>
>I was wondering if anyone on the net would care to comment on this.  If
>true, it would explain a lot to me.  When I see magazine photos that
>were taken with Hasselblads, they always seem to have a somewhat soft
>appearance, and the sharpness doesn't seem to measure up to the images
>made with certain other medium format equipment, notably Mamiya.
>
>... And notice how Zeiss was key to bringing back the Contax camera, and
>how Contax (with the RTS) came out with a nifty vacuum system to suck the
>film flat during exposure!  Is there something to this, or is it just my
>(typically) overactive imagination?
>
>Maybe Contax will have a 6x7 camera on the market soon???
>
>- Jay Ts
>--
>Jay Ts
>uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
>phone: (813) 979-9169

Hello Jay Ts,
First of all, I don't see how you could "see" the difference in sharpness of 
different cameras/lenses in magazine photos. One can see an image of a photo in
a magazine, but to make sharpness comparisons is doing the cameras and lenses a
real injustice. The printing process is not that good in magazines - even in a 
publication like Aperature.
Second, the only way to really test the sharpness of a lens is on a test bed. 
I'm sure that the same focal length lens from the same manufacturer, built on 
the same day, could vary a bit in sharpness. But I don't think it would be 
noticable to the human eye.
Third, It is my opinion that almost any lens from a name manufacturer can 
render a very, very sharp
image if used in ideal situations. By that I mean finding the ideal f
stops which produce the sharpest images, and using a very stable tripod.
Just my opinion.
Kevin F.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wtyler@adobe.com (William Tyler)
Subject: Re: Filter/Optics Question...
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:13:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.182546.28207@cello.hpl.hp.com> jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:

(replying to my comment about stopping down increasing any vignetting
that might be happening)

>Bill says that stopping down is the wrong thing to do.  His argument
>is based on defocusing the offending obstruction.  However, it appears
>that he has missed an important point, namely that two factors
>contribute to the needed diameter of a filter ring.  First is the
>angle of acceptance times the distance from the front nodal point to
>the filter ring.  Thus a wider angle lens needs a bigger filter ring.
>The second is the diameter of the aperture.  With a smaller aperture,
>you use less of the peripherey of the lens.

Of course a wider angle lens needs a bigger filter ring, all else
being equal. However David's comment about the periphery of the lens
reinforces my point about stopping down. Here's why. If you think
about imaging a point near the edge of the field of view, when you've
got a too-small filter on, the part of the lens that is near the point
angularly is shaded, but the other part isn't. Consider the diagram
below. 

                   *
	          /
	         /
	        /
	       /
       _______/
       \     /
	\   /
	 | /
	 |/
	/
       /______

It should be clear that your only chance of imaging the * at all is if
you are using the periphery of the lens on the side of the lens
opposite the *. Stopping down prevents this, thus the vignetting is
much more visible when stopped down.

Bill
-- 
Bill Tyler      wtyler@adobe.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: prodger@leland.Stanford.EDU (phillip prodger)
Subject: Re: Dumb Photographers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 23:41:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.182242.21761@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
>In article <92349.085025IDMLH@ASUACAD.BITNET>, <IDMLH@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>> I had a similar experience this summer at Yellowstone National Park.
>> I couldn't believe the amount of people with their instamatics so close
>> to the animal that I kept thinking "OH GOD...THEY'RE GOING TO PISS OFF
>> THAT ELK AND HE'S GOING TO CHARGE LEAVING SUCH NICE HOLES IN THEIR BODIES."
>> Thank Goodness nothing like that happened while I was there.  But if you
>> notice situations like that, the REAL photographers are as far away as
>> possible (so as not to induce bodily harm) with  TELEPHOTO LENS.
>
>Yes, most animals are amazingly tollerant of stupid humans. In Yellowstone
>I was one of the guys standing back with a 500mm (I'm not a real photographer
>though, I still have to work for a living :-). I was sort of hoping for a
>good "bison gores tourist" shot but luckily (for the tourists) I never got
>one. Several years ago in Yellowstone I did see a guy up to his armpits in
>mud. It seems he had been trying to get a P&S shot of a bear (which had left
>by the time I got there of course) and hadn't been watching where he was going
>when he stepped off a stream bank. Chalk up one for the bears!

Can't resist telling my two favorite Yellowstone bear stories...  Actually
true, no kiddin'.

In the first, a "photographer" was hoping to get a cute shot of a bear kissing
his baby boy...He took a jar of honey, and smeared it all over the boy's
cheek, set the boy up on a picnic bench, and waited for a bear to come
and perform his friendly duty.  Well, the bear approached, quietly, slowly,
sniffing at the air and eyeing the boy's tasty cheek.  He walked over to
the boy, set one paw on his shoulder, then bit his head off.  Yum!

In another, a "photographer" decided to get a cute shot of a bear driving his
4 x 4.  He set up a picnic basket in the driver's seat, and left the door
open for a bear to visit.  Sure enough, a bear saw the basket and jumped in
the cab.  The "photographer" shut the door, and waited for the bear to move
into a position that looked like he was driving.  Well, the bear never did
this, so he got the idea that if his wife was in the car too, the bear might
be encouraged to sit up better and stick to the driver's side of the car, as
if driving.  He opened the door, helped his wife in, and shut the door behind
her.  Bear mauled the wife to tiny bits.  Neat!

Dunno if it goes in the category of 'dumb photographers' or 'smart bears'. 





Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wb@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (werner.baumgartner)
Subject: Re: WD-40 Remover?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:47:27 GMT

In article <BzDqFr.3wn@news.ucs.mun.ca> hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm) writes:
>	My direct email bounced, and FAST.
>
>	Try acetone.  But no guarantees.  It SEEMS to thin anything!
>

It WILL dissolve many paints and plastics FAST.  Use it with caution.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Medium format enlarger recommendation needed
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:09:12 GMT

Al Chang (alc@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM) wrote:

: Cold light would help, it has the following advantages:
: 
:   Reduced film buckling.
:   better shades of gray.
:   less sensitive to dust on negative.
: 
: This is for black and white only. Some people prefer the higher
: contrast on 35mm when using condensor head but with 2 1/4, 
: the cold light is preferred (at least by me.) Most fine art 
: photographers use cold light for B/W. I never had problems 
: with buckling on my 2 1/4 on my Beseler 23C.

I agree 100% with Al.  Most (if not all) of the great printers use cold light.
If you want to read (and actually see) about the difference, grab a copy of
Fred Picker's "Zone VI Workshop".  It's about $12 or so, and worth every penny.
From the text:

	Recently, a student brought me a print, proof, and negative
	of a mountain stream in sun and shade.  He had made the print
	on the softest paper grade, but a foreground rock in sun was
	blocked and showed a textureless gray and white water had the
	same plaster-like quality.  The low values were unnaturally
	dark and there was no luminousity in the shadows.  The print
	suggested overexposure and/or overdevelopment of the negative,
	but his proper proof looked fine, as did the negative.

	We made a straight print using my enlarger and easily obtained
	a fine result with a #2 (normal) paper.  The foreground rock
	in sun and the sunlit water were brilliant and full of delicate
	textures, the shadows were luminous and the lower values showed
	rich detail where empty black showed in his print.  He was shocked
	and said that if he had not seen it done he wouldn't have
	believed it.  I wasn't surprised since his experience was typical.

	The reason for this difference in print quality was soley due
	to the type of printing illumination.  His enlarger is a new 4x5
	model with a condenser head.  My enlarger has a cold light head.
-- 
Ed Carp			erc@apple.com, erc@saturn.upl.com	801/538-0177

Who and what would you be if you went beyond your deepest fears?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: For Sale!
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:45:52 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
 <1992Dec16.000542.7497@adobe.com> <1992Dec16.014022.29856@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <1992Dec16.014022.29856@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
ianchan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ian Hin Yun Chan) wrote:
> I've got a few not-so-great things I want to sell:
> 1 24mm f/2.8 Sigma lens for Maxxum. Sadly, there appears to be some faulty
> 				    electronics and it works only
> 				    intermitently (abt 80% of the time).

Ian-

It seems that Minolta made the "i" series cameras a little different than
the older models.  Some of the second-source lenses wouldn't work properly
with the 7000i and 8000i bodies, even though they worked very well with the
older non-i bodies.  If you have a friend with an older body, try your
Sigma lens on it.  It may be OK, just not compatible with the newer body.

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:06:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <PD.92Dec10020744@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>- The EOS 10 has a lot of features that the 8008s doesn't, like for
>  instance interval timer, depth of field exposure mode.

Although I'll admit I've never used a camera with depth of field
exposure mode, a lens with a DOF scale seems like it would do the
trick.  Or develop an eye for what, say, 4 times the standard circle of
confusion looks like.  Use the DOF preview, set an aperture that looks
like that, then close down 4 stops.

The BIG feature the 10s has that the 8008s lacks is pseudo mirror
lockup.  A little features is the ability to not draw the leader all
the way in on rewind.
>
>>What are your thoughts?  I liked the 1/8000 shutter speed on the 
>>Nikon
>
>The ultra fast shutter speeds of several modern cameras are just
>marketing ploys, in my opinion. If the flash sync speed is fast, then
>you have a useful feature, but I don't think I've ever used a shutter
>speed faster than 1/500 or 1/1000.

The 8008s will flash sych to 1/250, but the 10s only to 1/125.  I have
the 8008 and use the 1/250 flash synch all the time.  It is very nice.
I've used 1/2000 numerous times and 1/4000 from time to time, but
1/8000 only once that I recall.  But what it is useful for is that it
gives an extra stop in aperture priority.  Maybe this is only a way of
saying the 8008s's program modes are weak.  But suppose I want as fast
a shutter speed as I can get.  The safest way is to use aperture
priority and open wide.  But the the light unexpectely gets too
bright, then I overexpose.  The 1/8000 gives an extra stop before that
happens.  

>What's so terrible about lithium batteries anyway? Everyone seems to
>badmouth them, but nobody has proven to me that they really are less
>cost effective than alkalines.
>--
>Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
>Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN

They sure are less cost effective the rechargeable NiCd cells.
I have not spent a penny on batteries since I switched to NiCd cells 2
years ago.

  -- David Jacobson

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (TJ Doran)
Subject: Taking pictures in snow... filters?
Keywords: polarizing vs 81
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:00:09 GMT

All this talk about taking pictures in snow has me thinking (those who know
me may be mildly shocked :-)

What is the difference, both technical and effective, between using polarizing
and 81-series filters to warm up those blue snowy shadows? Do they have the
same effect?

Also, I just found out about linear vs. circular polarizers (haven't checked
mine yet to see which it is). Will a linear polarizer throw off my light meter?
If so, how far and in which direction (+/-)?

Cheers,
TJ
-- 
TJ Doran  	              |"There you stand like a duck in a thunderstorm
TJDORAN@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca | again... Aren't you ever going to understand?" 
                              |                         - W.A. Mozart
From: parsons1@applelink.apple.COM (Don Parsons)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Zone VI 4x5 view comments ?
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:31:15 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Dec14.152551.6976@spectrum.xerox.com>,
mcfarlan@aurigaxerox.com (Doug McFarland) wrote:
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of moving into large format with a Zone VI 4x5 view.
> 
> Does anyone have any comments good or bad on this camera ?
> 
> --
> 	always learnin'
> 
> 		doug
> 
> ********************************************
>         McFarland.henr801c@Xerox.com    
> ********************************************

I do not have one, but have a friend who does. From what I have seen, I
came to the following conclusions. I hope others will either add to or
correct anything that I have said.

Cons:
* According to the Calumet catalog, it does not allow interchangeable
bellows. So, you could not, for example, add bellows for wide angle lenses.
(I am curious to know what the shortest supported focal length is for this
camera.)

* It does not have fine adjustment knobs. Instead, the knobs are for
holding current adjustments. Once you loosen a knob, you manually move the
component (such as the front standard), and then tighten the knob to hold
it in that position. With some view cameras, you have knobs to slowly and
precisely Rdial-inS fine adjustments.

* Many of the adjustments do not have marked scales that allow you to make
adjustments that are guided by numbers. This would be nice if you wanted to
re-create specific adjustments. With the Zone VI view cameras, you go by
rough approximation.

Pros:
* When folded, they are VERY small.

* They are very light.

* They are beautiful cameras. The workmanship is amazing. This is one of
the few cases where I would say the camera itself is a work of art.

* You canUt beat the guarantee.

* They are much less expensive than most of the alternatives.

When it comes down to it, the most important single component (in terms of
making high quality images) is the lens. The lenses you will be using with
a Zone VI view are the same as the ones you will be using with any of the
alternatives. With good technique and composition, images you create with a
Zone VI camera will be every bit as good as what you could create with any
other view camera. Some of the alternative camera just have features that
might make things easier for you.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: umeca80@ps.ic.ac.uk (Bruce Taylor)
Subject: Re: I Hate Grainy Pictures -- TMZ, Acufine...Microphen?
Organization: Imperial College Computer Centre
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 10:28:52 GMT


>In article <1992Dec14.115456.12286@cc.ic.ac.uk> umeca80@ps.ic.ac.uk 
>(Bruce Taylor) writes:
>
>   You could try using 2 bath development which reduces the size of visible
>   grain clumps. In the UK we get Tetenal Emofin developer which is readily
>   available. If I remember correctly the times for T-Max 3200 in this are
>   around 5+5 minutes with continuous agitation (i.e. keep inverting the
>   tank). The problem with T-Max P3200 is that the shadow detail goes. If
>   using Emofin its better to rate it at 1600. A better choice is Fuji
>   Neopan 1600 which gives fine grain with Emofin and a better tonal range
>   than P3200. If you can't get Tetenal products, there is a US product
>   which is similar  although I can't remember the name offhand.
>
>I'd bet that you're thinking of Diafine, probably the best known
>commercially available two-bath developer.  It's made by the same
>company as Acufine.
>
>Interesting stuff...
>

Yep. I sure was thinking of Diafine. I looked the stuff up last night. Diafine 
is slightly different to Tetenal Emofin in that it is a development to 
completion process which was the original idea of 2-bath development. The
development time in Diafine is 3+3 minutes. Contrast is controlled by exposure,
i.e. how you rate the film, not by development. Emofin is time-critical as it
is not a develop to completion process. Contrast is a function of exposure and
development. Both developers give a speed increase with (relatively :) fine 
grain.
From: kting@cse.unl.edu (Kea Ting)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: I Hate Grainy Pictures
Date: 14 Dec 1992 21:59:00 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu

cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:

>per se is not necessarily evil or the mark of a bad photographer.  Some 
>people even consider it arty!

   Yes, I agree. I used to like picture with less grain or very few grain.
I used the Ekta 25 for portrait before. Now I think I get tired with the
grainless picture, I am trying  to make some pictures with a lot of grain,
I think the grain make the picture look different.
--
soon

University Of                  Disclaimer :
Nebraska-Lincoln               I always speak for myself.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: grain
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:38:28 GMT

In article <1g647mINN78m@crcnis1.unl.edu>, kting@cse.unl.edu (Kea Ting) writes:
> Hi,
>     I am trying to get some ideas of how to get a lot of grains on my
> picture or slide (for special mood). Any idea on how to get a lot
> of grains on b&w , color and slide film is welcome.
>    Thanks.
> 

Ah, an easy one!! Kodak Recording 2475. Double the grain, or your money back.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders)
Subject: Re: Lithiums vs. alkalines (was Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:04:45 GMT

| This is the first posting I've seen with some numbers on 
| the difference between lithiums and alkalines (I assume you 
| are using alkaline AA's). Can you give us some real, hard data? 
| Have you done a comparison, or know of a test showing alkalines 
| to be more cost effective?
				-Per Danielsson

I know only two things: first, I shot at least 50 rolls of film
on my first set of AA alkaline batteries. I'm not a heavy shooter,
so my expectation is that I probably could have shot even more
film on those batteries during the same time period since AA's
will discharge somewhat while they're sitting. Nikon estimates
at least 75 rolls per set of batteries, but let's say it's fifty.
At $3.15 per four-pack of AA batteries, that's $0.063 per roll.

The second thing I know is that rec.photo readers say that lithiums
last for anywhere from 5-25 rolls of film. That probably depends
alot on flash use, and possibly on brand of battery. Let's say the
average is 20 rolls, even though this sounds very generous from
what people have reported. At $12 per battery, that's $0.60 per
roll of film--TEN TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that lithiums have
their advantages, especially for the occasional shooter. But there
seems to be no doubt that they cost more to use than AA's.

					-Alan

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Rinne@PC386.ikw.uni-hannover.dbp.de (Frank Rinne)
Subject: MAMIYA CABIN 67
Keywords: Projector
Organization: IKW
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:10:18 GMT

I'am looking for a slide projector for my Pentax 67.
Can I receive some informations about the Mamiya Cabin 67
projector.
Thanks
Frank
Frank Rinne
Institute for Refrigeration
Welfengarten 1A
3000 Hannover 1
EMAIL: Rinne@IKW@UNI-HANNOVER.DBP.DE
Phone 0049 511 762 5201
Fax   0049 511 762 5203