HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: TOXIC B&W DEV/PRINT CHEMICALS?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:40:26 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) wrote:
> I am considering buying an enlarger in the next few days and wanted to
> inquire how toxic the chemicals for B&W developing and printing are.
> I largely want to know because of the presence of a pregnant person in
> the house (my wife).  Also are the chemicals safe for children (newborns etc)
> to be around?

As ought to be in the FAQ, Kodak has some useful publications on darkroom
safety and chemical handling.

If you've got a small kid, this stuff ought to be locked up where they
can't get at it.  (Common hazards: stop bath is dangerously acidic; Rodinal
is mostly potassium hydroxide, i.e. hazardously alkaline; used fixer can
contain toxic levels of dissolved silver; reversal processing chemicals can
be dangerously acidic; and dichromates, used in some exotic processes, can
cause skin ulcers, lung damage and cancer).  That leaves chemicals that
produce gases to worry about:

- most developers give off sulphur dioxide, which can cause a generalized
  allergy syndrome in some people if exposed for a long time (and I don't
  think anyone knows what childhood exposure does, as this effect has only
  recently been discovered).  This means proper ventilation when they're
  exposed in trays.

- selenium toner and sulphide-based sepia toners give off much more toxic
  fumes (hydrogen selenide? and hydrogen sulphide).  These also diffuse
  into places sulphur dioxide can't reach.  Probably not a good idea to
  have them in the same house as a small child, though transferring them
  to glass storage bottles might help.  Certainly find somewhere else to
  do selenium toning; that stuff is *really* deadly.

- formaldehyde, used as a stabilizer in colour slide processing, can
  cause a whole lot of problems and is similarly pervasive.  Best not
  to use it in the house.

All of which still makes a basic B/W setup quite safe if you take sensible
precautions, though.  Meaning *lock the stuff away* in an externally
ventilated cupboard.

You don't even want to *think* about some nineteenth century processes.
Development in mercury vapour, fixation with cyanide, collodion dissolved
in diethyl ether, high-explosive emulsions...

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
From: monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 8x10, Christopher Burkett, light sources
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:14:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bw4tsy.H0n
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis

In article <1992Oct14.183430.17217@cis.ohio-state.edu> ray@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (william c ray) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.174255.24367@cello.hpl.hp.com> jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.143408.10507@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>
>>>I suppose you could just shoot directly on Cibachrome...it might kind of
>>>interesting. How long would you have to expose Ciba in bright sunshine
>>>at f/64? Talk about "limited edition" prints! ;-)
>>>
>>>Steve
>>
>>I saw the smiley faces, but decided to reply seriously anyway.  One
>>problem with direct exposure on a print paper would be that you would
>>get a mirror image.  You would have to rig up some kind of rigid
>>mirror in front of the camera to add a compensating reversal.
>>
>>  -- David Jacobson
>
>
>Ummm, think again David... remember that it is reversed both horizontaly and
>verticaly.  Now, even if it was a problem, you'd need a rather interesting
>mirror setup to do the double reversal... On the other hand, consider the
>fact that the image _is_ reversed both verticaly and horizontaly... Now take
>a piece of paper, and holding it face up, rotate it 180 degrees.  Notice
>that it is now reversed both verticaly and horizontaly.  Do you need a 
>mirror to correct the image?
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 yes, a mirror will be needed. In the early days of photography, when the
 finished image was produced in the camera,(daguerreotype?)
 it was standard practice
 to put a mirror in front of the lens, and orient the camera at right angles to
 the subject in order to avoid the "mirror image syndrome."
 You forgot that in this image, you have moved your viewpoint from
 looking toward the lens to looking away from the lens.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mattw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Ward)
Subject: Help: Which tripod?
Summary: I need a tripod, please read on.
Keywords: tripod recommend
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:55:46 GMT

I need a tripod to use for landscapes and wildlife.  It needs
to be transportable or backpackable, about 5'8" when extended,
able to work well with 300mm to 500mm lenses as well as macro
lenses.  I need recommendations for the leg set as well as for
the head.  I can give up a little stability for less weight
since I don't do portraits, I think.  Thanks in advance.


-- 
			Matt Ward
			mattw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
			University of Illinios
			Department of CCSO
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: equacken@encore.com (Eric E. Quackenbush)
Subject: A mailorder success story
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:39:15 GMT


I called and ordered a Quantum 1+ battery and module from Camera World of
Oregon late on a Friday night.  I told them I didn't want a back order and
they said they would call back if there was and I could backorder, cancel 
just the backordered piece (they knew the battery was in stock but were not
sure if module was) or cancel full order.  They indicated that if I did
decide to backorder there would be NO additional shipping charge.  I was 
given an ETA of 5 - 7 working days and it would ship on the following Monday
do to UPS already had been and left.  Low and behold I received a box from
them on the 6th working day, everything was new and exactly what I ordered.
They were only $2.00 more than the cheapest price (after shipping) I had
gotten from the grey marketeers in NYC.  They were also very helpfull and
courteous on the phone.  I saved over $50 dollars from in town.  I'll order
from these folks again!

Eric Quackenbush
equacken@encore.com
From: antonsen@hpcndaw.CND.HP.COM (Tim Antonsen)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:21:04 GMT
Subject: Re: invisible flash?
Organization: HP Network and System Management Division
Newsgroups: rec.photo


I've heard of this: cover the !flash! face with a "black" infrared (RM90)
filter.  Load the camera with infrared film. If you're looking right at the
filter, you evidently an see a very dim red *pop* when the flash fires, but
you flood the subject with infrared-only light. I heard of it in the context
of B&W, but color might also yeild interesting results.

I have many questions about this, and not enough personal interest to take 
time to test the technique. If you try it and it works, let us all know.

--Tim
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Beginning Interests
Date: 17 Oct 1992 04:25:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <1992Oct16.145708.29045@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Jimmy.Tung@dartmouth.edu (Jimmy Tung) writes:
>I liked Upton and Upton's Photography, adapted from the Life Library of
>Photography, Little, Brown & Co..

Seconded.  It's a great book.  It covers everything from the basics
to view cameras.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags 
-- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: "martin tai" <martin.tai@canrem.com>
Subject: foggy photo
Reply-To: "martin tai" <martin.tai@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:01:31 EST



      The  problem  of  foggy  photographs is cause by  lens
flare.  Earlier  zoom  lenses  are  particularily  vulnerable
to this problem.   Zoom lens  has  too  many  elements, ( usually
10  and  above) , so there  are  much  more  glass/air boundary
causing  reflections and  flare.   Konica  Hexanon lens are
quite  good in  flare control.  If you use  your  original Hexanon
lens  this problem shall  disappear.

     To  check  the  flare of you  zoom, just  hold your zoom
lens  against  sun  ray,  and  reflect  the sun ray  to  a wall
surface  or  a piece of paper, and  check  the  reflection.
Good  lens, such  as  Konica  Hexanon, creates very  little
reflection,  I bet  you  will find a  very  bright spot of
reflection  with  you zoom; that  shows  how  much  of light
has been lost, and  how bad the  reflection is. These
refections into the  camera will create large amount of flare.



                   |             |
  ------------------->----------------------
                   |             |
      ray                             99% passed

    <...............

     1%  reflected


                    Good  lens


                    |             |   original image
    ------------------------------ ................
      <...........   <------------
                     ------------->............

                                     flare and ghosts


                  Bad  Lens  has  multiple internal reflections
causing  flare and  ghosts.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: teplitz@optilink.UUCP (Ron Teplitz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Wista Camera For Sale
Keywords: 4x5 camera
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:34:30 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

Wista DXII 4x5 camera.  Wooden field.
Includes 150 mm Caltar lens.
Both less than 2 years old, in mint condition. 
Also includes film holders.
$950 or best offer. 

Respond by email to me or to pucci@optilink.com or
uunet!optilink!pucci.
.

-- 
Ron Teplitz - Tech Writer/Cellist
UUCP:   uunet!optilink!teplitz	Internet: teplitz@optilink.com 
"Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so". D. Adams
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shao@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (shao-shen.kang)
Subject: Re: Nikon manuals
Keywords: Nikon, manual
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: bl
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:13:09 GMT

Per today's Article 42266 regarding to
Nikon's manuals, I believe it's
     1 800 NIKON US
i.e.

     1 800 645-6687

Shao Kang

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: night exposures for traffic
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 11:26:39 GMT

In article <5360813@hplsla.hp.com>, andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino) writes:
> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
...
> I know this is the conventional wisdom. However, I also know that this 
> runs contrary to my results with the various Fujichromes. Once I get
> into several-minute exposures, I start seeing some fairly low contrast
> results (for Fujichrome).
> 
This is VERY interesting. It implies a plateau in the RF characteristics of
Fijichrome. I have never seen anything like this in practice or in the
literature before. The nearest aproach would be astronomical plates that have
an extreamly low RF at very long times.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rodney@cs.UAlberta.CA (Rodney Gitzel)
Subject: Re: Safelight for TMAX film
Organization: University of Alberta
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:16:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.214107.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
>> Someone told me once that there is a safelight filter
>>  that can be used during the development of TMAX film.
>> Does anyone know about this?  I would like to use a safelight
>>  in some experiments with extreme push-processing.
>
>A number 3. It's *DARK* green. Like about 1.5% transmition at 500-530nM.
>You can use it for about 2 sec.

Hmmm.  So you can't just leave it on the whole time, then?  Bummer.

>
>What do you mean by "extreme" BTW?

Well, how about pushing TMZ to 51200?  I tried 25600 at the
 recommended times and got nice blank negs.  It would be nice
 to not have to guess, agitate for days, and discover the guess
 was still off -- if I can see how the developing is going, then
 I just agitate as long as needed.

I would also like to try pushing TMX five or six stops, just to see
 if I can make it go grainy.  (Yeah, right...)

>~Paul
>

Thanks for the info.

Rodney Gitzel
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: multiple aperture markings on a large-format lens
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:44:52 GMT
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA


In article <1992Oct9.180836.13345@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis) writes:

|> I got to play with a REAL lens similar to this; a 95-500/f1.4.  It
|> also has a built-in 2X teleconverter that can be added.
|> 
|> Unfortunately, we're talking about a TV camera lens so I don't think
|> it will quite cover 11x14 ;-).  It might not even cover 35mm, but what
|> the heck.  The other disadvantantages are it weighs about 40 pounds
|> and costs about $75,000.
|> 
|> In comparison to some others this was a rather wimpy lens.  It's not
|> uncommon to see 55:1 zoom ratios on cameras used at football games.
|> Price tag:  $150,000+.

Well, these TV guys are pretty lucky -- their lenses really don't
have to be very sharp.  There's no point in putting a fuzzy lens on
a view camera!

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com

Warn your kids -- "Math is tough."
From: mattw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Ward)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: 300mm Rokinon mirror for sale.
Summary: Forsale 300mm Rokinon mirror.
Keywords: 300mm lens
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:54:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Forsale: 300mm f/5.6 Rokinon mirror.  This lens is in very
good condition.  It has a Canon t-mount on it now, but will
take other mounts that work on screw mount lenses.  I will be
taking offers through 10-14-92.

-- 
			Matt Ward
			mattw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
			University of Illinios
			Department of CCSO
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: franz@cs.washington.edu (Franz G. Amador)
Subject: moonlit landscapes / stars (4x5)
Keywords: night, moon, stars, 4x5, view camera
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 01:19:01 GMT

Does anyone know a good way to pick an exposure for a moonlit
landscape?  Seems like there ought to be a rule equivalent to "sunny
f/16" for the full moon; the half moon ought to be one stop darker;
etc.  I doubt my light meter will work; it reads only to EV 1 (ISO
100).

Also, does anyone have a good explanation for the effects of aperature
upon star trails?  I've heard it said that the aperature affects the
thickness of the trails, not their brightness, which depends strictly
upon the "light gathering" ability of the lens.  Is this right?  Does
a single aperature/trail-thickness relation hold across all lenses?
What is the light gathering ability of a lens, and how can you
determine it?

I ask all this because I have a photo idea involving shooting a snowy
moonlit landscape with the stars turning above.  I'm shooting Velvia
in a 4x5, though, so I don't want to blow a lot of film on
experiments.  My lens is a Symmar-S 210/5.6, so my maximum aperature
is limited.

All thoughts and advice appreciated.

Franz Amador
franz@cs.washington.edu
{rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!franz
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: oscillograph lenses
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:21:15 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

Another obscure lens question (and many thanks to everyone who responded
to the last one - donl's suggestion that I had a Tessar-alike sorta-
convertible seems the most plausible, though I can't check as the thing
doesn't come apart with any reasonable degree of torque I dare apply to it).

Here's another one about something I've seen in a local shop.  It's a
special-purpose camera for taking pictures of oscillograph screens,
apparently put together from three parts of different provenance:

	- a normal Polaroid back

	- a simple focusing rack, apparently made in a small machine shop

	- an f3.5 75mm lens in a Compur shutter, engraved to say it's an
	  oscillograph lens (I forget the manufacturer; British, anyway).

The last is the potentially interesting item, as it seems to have quite
good coverage (certainly enough for my 6x9 view camera), if the size of the
Polaroid attached to it is any guide.  But what I'd expect is that a lens
intended for this application would have pretty poor sharpness and flare
control, and might well have more fall-off at the edges than a lens
intended for continuous-tone subjects; about all you'd need would be
reasonable distortion correction, and there wouldn't be much incentive for
a manufacturer to use anything fancier than a Rapid Rectilinear design,
computed for use in the macro range.

How's my guesswork?  I am attracted by the sheer weirdness of this thing,
but given what I suspect about its limitations, I'm not sure what it might
be good for.  Has anyone out there used a lens designed for this niche?

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: I hate my Zone VI field camera
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:27:19 GMT
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
Distribution: rec
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.


I just returned my Zone VI 4x5 field camera and I thought I'd let you
know why.  Good point: the camera looks beautiful, with its polished
mahogany standards and gold-plated fixtures; people always stop to ask
you if it is an antique (with a Sinar, they just stop to ask if you
are sane).

Bad points:

1) the camera is heavy and bulky, almost as bad as a Sinar F2 and not
nearly as small as a Horseman FA

2) the lensboards are big losers.  First of all, they have to be
almost forced into the camera since the clips don't retract far
enough.  Secondly, after laboriously removing a lens, one must then
push the clips back to fold the camera (a Horseman would let you leave
a small lens mounted so I hear).  Finally, the dish around the rear
element isn't large enough for either of the two spanner wrenches I
tried to work, i.e. you have to spend $150 for a special wrench or you
can't share lenses with another camera.

3) the camera would be way better if it had a collapsible focussing
hood so that the ground glass was protected in transport and also so
that one didn't have to carry a bulky focussing cloth

4) folding up the camera is a tedious nightmare of unscrewing what
seems like dozens of crudely knurled knobs -- not much fun on a
freezing day.

5) focussing involves manipulating knobs on both sides of the camera

6) even with all knobs tightened, the standards seem to move without
my wanting them to.

Using one of these for just a day will remind you of why they invented
Nikons.  Anyone have good experience with the Horseman or Toyo field
cameras?

Philip Greenspun
MIT Department of Electrical Engineering
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sparks@col.hp.com (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: 8x10, Christopher Burkett, light sources
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:55:07 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

In article <45d403Cma9ib00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> bjs@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman) writes:
>But this got me to thinking.  Although I've only been using 4x5 for about
>9 months now, I'm already dissatisfied with my image quality  when I compare 
>my images with those made with 8x10 format.  Now, I'm not in a financial 
>position to switch from 4x5 to 8x10 yet, especially with my company planning a 
>10% RIF in the next few weeks.  But I'm thinking about it.  Now, at last, the 
>question.  What light sources are available for doing color work with 8x10 
>originals?  I've already been playing with trying to convert my enlarger from 
>4x5 to 8x10 by building a different negative carrier and getting an Aristo 
>cold light head.  But that wouldn't be optimal for doing color.  Are there any 
>dichro 8x10 heads made?  Can the Beseler/Minolta head be used for 8x10?  
>Anyone know?

Omega and Durst both make 8x10 dichro enlargers (probably other manufacturers
as well).  They are very expensive (maybe an order of magnitude greater than 
4x5 enlargers).  I vaguely remember something about Omega F enlargers (D is
4x5, E is 5x7 and F is 8x10) in the Calumet caltalog, I'm sure they would 
have prices.  I don't know if the color head is available seperate from the
enlarger or if it could be adapted to a 4x5 enlarger or not.

John Sparks
From: slambert@AFIT.AF.MIL (Steve Lambert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Beginning Interests
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:27:00 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institue of Technology, WPAFB OH

Alright I'm sure you've heard this before, however, since I have just 
recently been given the oppurtunity to get into these new groups I haven't 
been able to see the replys or the questions.

I've always been interested in photography but due to my lack of knowledge 
on the subject, I have never been sure where to start or what to read to 
gain a small portion of the knowledge needed.

Simply put -- What are some recommendations on the books, magazines, etc., 
that will inform a very basic beginner in this field.  I'm looking for 
pleasure mostly, landscape etc.

Any suggestions would be very much appreciated.  Thanks in advance.
From: az1@ukc.ac.uk (A.Zafar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: film for 35mm portraiture?
Date: 11 Oct 92 10:48:11 GMT
Reply-To: az1@ukc.ac.uk (A.Zafar)
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

In article <1992Oct9.220603.27805@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow) writes:
>
>For 35mm portrait work I've been very pleased with Kodak Gold Plus
>100. I have also been very pleased with Fuji Professsional NHG 400.
>Both of these have quite fine grain and are relatively low contrast
>films, capable of excellent flesh tones.

	I have always had excellent results with Fuji Reala. Recently however
I have been trying my luck with Ektar 25. I seem to have difficulty deciding
which one to use since they are both great.

--
			 - Aman Zafar 			_   /|
			 - University of Kent 		\'o.O'
			 - England. 			=(___)=	
							   U
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Macbeth ColorChecker
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:21:02 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


Andy Wai writes:

> I don't have a McBeth color chart (nobody around here wants to carry it
> because it's outrageously expensive and the distributor insists on shipping
> big lots only), but didn't somebody mention eariler in this thread that a
> sheet with CIE tristimulus values for the patches is packaged with the
> chart?

Yea, Andy, it was me, and yes they do but only for the colors & gray scale they
use on this chart.  If you don't want to buy it, a reference is also included:

	"A Color Rendition Chart", McCamy et al., Journal of Applied
	Photographic Engineering, Summer Issue, 1976, Vol. 11, No. 3, 
	pp. 95-99.


I haven't seen this article, but your library should be able to get it and
might be cheaper than the chart.


eugene kowaluk
Newsgroups: rec.photo