HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: accwai@math.uwaterloo.ca (Andy Wai)
Subject: Re: $#@^$% JOBO Reels
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:44:16 GMT

In article <726699806snx@rats.demon.co.uk> ian@rats.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.001335.7813@cs.UAlberta.CA>
>   rodney@cs.UAlberta.CA (Rodney Gitzel) writes:
>
>> The CPE-2 came as a "starter kit"; do they ship
>>  *extremely* cheap reels with such kits?  The
>>  ones I have are flimsy white plastic, and I have
>>  *yet* to get one loaded without snagging the
>>  film (35mm).  One night it took nearly 20 minutes
>>  to load only four reels!!!
>
>You don't say which kind of tube you are using (1500 series or 2500
>series).  I had a 1500 series tube (the thinner ones) which came with
>white reels.  I found I could cope with them fine after a while,
>although they were more difficult to get started with than the Paterson
>ones.  [...]

One should alway practise with scrap film in the light before one does
the real thing.  For me, the trick is not to force it.  If the whole
thing grinds to a halt, backup off a bit and shake it loose a little
and try again.

>> So, can I use some better type of reel?

You can get stainless steel reels for the 1500 tanks.  I don't have me
Jobo full line catalog with me so I can't give you the numbers.  If
I remember it correctly, these reels  are much more expensive than the
plastic ones.  They are not adjustable, so you need extra reels if you
do both 35mm and 120.  Then they need special stainless steel central
cores which, unlike the plastic ones, are not modular.  You need a
steel core for every tank combo you're going to use and I don't think
it's available for the shorter tanks.  You'll probably need a special
end funnel too since the steel core is not light tight.  Pretty hairy
if you as me.

>You could try getting a 2500 series tube and a couple of the 2500 series
>reels. The smallest tube would be a 2521, which will take two reels.

Turns out that the 2521 has the exact same size and shape as the short
test drum in the 2800 series, which turns out to be the same as the end
section of the 11x14 print drum as well.  All you need to change the
test print drum into a film tank is the film reel, the central core and
the end funnel.  The funnel is common across the entire Jobo line, so
you can just use the one you have now.  I believe the double 35mm tank
(1502?) is in the starter kit.  Turns out that its central core would
fit the 2521 and the test print drum exactly.  So all you really need
are just the reels.

Andy Wai
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ole-jorgen.maland@tft.tele.no (Ole Jorgen Maland)
Subject: Help! My N8008s will not focus!
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: TFT
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:24:37 GMT

Yesterday I was shooting some pictures when suddenly the AF stopped
working. It focuses towards indefinetly and stays there showing an "x" in
the display in the finder. When I try to focus manually at the closest and
turn it over to AF it will focus right and shoot, but it will not focus on
something closer than the current focus! It seems that the focus engine
only operates one way (-> oo) Have anybody had the same problem and what
did you do to solve the problem? 

My batteries are quite fresh, and I tried to switch the batteries with
those in the flash without any change. (I use to have the freshest
batteries in the flash). But I have not yet tried to install new batteries
- it could help. Any comments?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ian@rats.demon.co.uk ("Ian A. Young")
Subject: Re: $#@^$% JOBO Reels
Reply-To: ian@rats.demon.co.uk
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.20 $
Organization: not
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:03:26 +0000

In article <1993Jan10.001335.7813@cs.UAlberta.CA>
   rodney@cs.UAlberta.CA (Rodney Gitzel) writes:

> The CPE-2 came as a "starter kit"; do they ship
>  *extremely* cheap reels with such kits?  The
>  ones I have are flimsy white plastic, and I have
>  *yet* to get one loaded without snagging the
>  film (35mm).  One night it took nearly 20 minutes
>  to load only four reels!!!

You don't say which kind of tube you are using (1500 series or 2500
series).  I had a 1500 series tube (the thinner ones) which came with
white reels.  I found I could cope with them fine after a while,
although they were more difficult to get started with than the Paterson
ones.  I now use the wider tubes (2500 series) which seem to come with
black plastic reels.  I find these less fiddly to load, although there
is still a trick to it.

> I am used to the Patterson plastic reels, which, according
>  to metal reel people, are atrocious.  But I have no
>  problems with them.  These JOBO reels, on the other hand...
> 
> So, can I use some better type of reel?  Or is it just me,
>  and I don't understand how to use the things?

You could try getting a 2500 series tube and a couple of the 2500 series
reels. The smallest tube would be a 2521, which will take two reels. 
There are three types of reel, though, so be careful:  the 2501 is for
72-exposure rolls and needs a special loader.  The one you want is the
2502. The 2509 is for sheet film.

   -- Ian
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mlkerns@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael L Kerns)
Subject: Pentax P3 Questions
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:17:14 GMT



I am thinking of purchasing a used Pentax P3 with a CPC 28-70 zoom lens.
Does anyone out there know anything about the camera or the lens that I should 
be aware of before I make a decision?  I've never heard of CPC lenses before, 
but it wouldn't bother me to get  another lens if the body is good.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Michael Kerns
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: craig@sco.COM (Craig R.P. Heath)
Subject: Re: Bargains in Moscow?
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:48:27 GMT


mic@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Clarke) writes:

>The Zenit line of 35mm and view cameras and optics are also inferior
>to just about anything except a pinhole camera.  Good luck getting one
>repaired when it breaks, which it will do on about the second roll of
>film.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I own a Zenit B, which I bought
second hand for 18 pounds 17 years ago.  It was my first SLR, and I
used it exclusively until I finally bought a Minolta 5000 (fed up with
using a hand-held meter, and occasionally forgetting to stop it down
after focusing) 4 years ago.  The Zenit _never_ went wrong (and I must
have run at least 100 films through it, mostly colour transparency).
The standard Helios lens was not perfect - the Minolta gives sharper
pictures - but you can't touch the Zenit for value-for-money.

>A Kiev or a Zenit is a conversation piece -- not a camera.

Well, I still have the Zenit and it still works (the Minolta had to
be repaired recently), and it may be crude but it has depth-of-field
preview which my whizz-bang Minoltas don't (I have a 7000i now too).

>For the same dollar amount you will get a much better camera buying
>used gear from one of the advertisers in Shutterbug.

Yeah, buy two used Zenits! ;-)

		- Craig @ SCO near London.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: How to become a freelance photojournalist?
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:24:04 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <15224@ncrcan.Canada.NCR.CA>, tnelson@ncrcan.Canada.NCR.CA (Tim
Nelson) wrote:
> I volunteered to do some photography for a couple organizations, who would
> like their events photographed and published in the local newspapers, but
> I was wondering how I could get a photo-journalists papers, so that I can
> be out taking pictures, and don't have to worry that anyone will bother me
> and tell me that I have to put away my camera.  (ie freedom of the press
> and all that stuff)

Tim-

The organizations running the events are the only ones likely to ask you to
put away your camera.  I don't think you need much in the way of
credentials, at this point in your career.

However, in order to get pictures published, you need to find out what the
newspapers' requirements are.  Do these organizations already have contacts
with them?  Some newspapers may only print photographs taken by their own
personnel.

After you have some experience, you may develop a reputation and establish
contacts within the newspapers, who can sponsor you for press credentials.

Although I don't recommend it, there is a pseudo-photographic magazine,
whose sole advertiser seems to be a company selling fake photo credentials.
 I suspect these obviously fake credentials would carry no more weight than
just having an impressive looking camera outfit!

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Simple checks for layman on lens and camera.
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 00:20:45 GMT

In article <C0CAst.9DH@hplabs.hpl.hp.com> hintzman@hpljah.hpl.hp.com writes:
>In article <lkds2hINN6sr@news.bbn.com>, koolish@bbn.com (Richard M. Koolish) writes:
>|> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:

>|>     dealer is trying to gouge you, and because they don't always want
>|>     to lug all the stuff home.  

Sometimes, the best deals are just before the show closes, when
dealers would rather sell something than take it home.

>  If a lens from a major manufacturer is clean,
>unscratched, the aperture blades move smoothly, and the focusing ring
>turns smoothly and evenly, that chances are good that everything is OK.

Bring along a small flashlight, like the mini-mag that I carry around.
Check inside the lens for mold, looking from both ends.  I once found
a nice cheap tele, but it had a whole bloody forest growing inside it.
Know how much it might cost to dismantle, clean and rebuild; for some
lenses, it might just be worth it.

>You can (usually) tell in a few seconds whether a lens has been abused or not.

Check the end that mounts on the camera for scratches.  That might
tell you how much use it has seen.  Bring along a lens hood of the
right size and check that it screws smoothly onto the front.  If not,
the lens may have been dropped and the accesory threads bent out of
shape.
 
-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Manual mode in the EOS 5 (was Re: Elan "better" than 10s?)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:40:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.224644.1001@colorado.edu> panos@burton.cs.colorado.edu (Panos Tsirigotis) writes:

>2) Use of the analog exposure scale in manual mode
> [The Elan doesn't use it, only the Rebel and the EOS-1 does]

> BTW, the A2 also uses the +,- method (if it used the exposure
> scale in manual mode I would have bought it despite the price
> difference from the Elan).

I just had a look at a EOS 5 today, and it used the exposure scale to
show how much off your exposure would be, when in manual mode. Don't
know about the US version (A2 and A2E).

BTW: I also had the opportunity to play a little with the new EF
35-350/3.5-5.6L. Veeeery nice piece of glass, but kind of heavy.
Monopod (at least) recommended. It's got a sturdy tripod collar so it
probably balances well on a mono- or tripod. The zoom is push-pull,
and there is a tighten/loosen ring to adjust the friction.
Rather expensive...
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
From: al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: light meter problem - Nikon SLR
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:01:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1993Jan10.170131.22262
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

In article <C0M4yJ.81D@well.sf.ca.us> rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao) writes:
>
>I have a problem with a Nikon FM which I haven't used in a while. The thing
>is that it keeps telling me there is too much light coming in. I was
>aiming at an outdoor scene and turned the aperture and shutter speed to
>all possible extremes and it still said there was too much light. The
>ASA is 200. (This meter has a "+","-", and normal LED.)
>
>Is there anything that might cause this except for, of course, a malfunction
>with the thing? I thought it might be the batteries but that didn't sound
>right.

AHA!  I just figured out what your problem may be...

Is the AI tab extended?  On the FM, you can "fold" the AI tab back
to allow use of non-AI lenses.  If folded back, it will read like
a wide open lens, unless you stop down manually.  There's a little
"button" that releases the AI tab from it's normal position on
the aperature ring.  It does NOT need to be pressed to click the
AI tab back into place.

The other less happy scenario would be that you put a non-AI lens on
without folding the AI tab, and screwed up the aperature ring. :-(



-- 
Alan L. Peterman                                 (503)-684-1984 hm & work
                       al@qiclab.scn.rain.com
It's odd how as I get older, the days are longer, but the years are shorter!
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ebraeden@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric W Braeden)
Subject: Re: Recommendations sought for TR81 & Comments on TR200
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:20:31 GMT

This was meant for rec.video....Sorry.
-- 
Eric W. Braeden                    | "Der Verstand war zwar praechtig
Ohio State University              | doch das Nuetzte am Ende nicht viel"
ebraeden@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu | Peter Schilling   120 Grad    1983
From: duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Li Du)
Subject: Re: Fuji GW670 tests?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 14:37:36 GMT

In article <09JAN93.09421412@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> GOCH <GOCH@UNB.CA> writes:
>Has anyone seen a test of the Fuji GW670 or 690 rangefinder camera?
>I tested the first version of the 690 (the one with an inter-
>changable lens) and decided that I got better results with my
>Pentax 6x7 with 105mm lens than the Fuji with its 100mm lens. That
>was for landscape work on a tripod. I haven't had a chance to try
>the newer models. I like rangefinders (I use Leica M-4's), and would
>like a walk-about medium format camera lighter than the Pentax.
>Any first-hand experience out there? I hate buying blind, and that's
>what I usually have to do here in New Brunswick!
>
	I have used the Fuji GW 690-II(not the new smooth-edged version),
	with a 90mm/3.4 non-interchangable lens, for about a year now.
	I haven't done any comparison with other 6x7 or 6x9 equipment.
	But I have done a rough comparison of its lens quality with a
	Nikkor 85/2.0 lens for 35mm camera. For each picture I took with
	the Fuji 690-II, I also took 5 pictures with the Nikon covering
	roughly(larger) the same view. All shots were done on Velvia
	film with cameras on tripod. Here is what I found. With both
	lenses wide open, the Fuji image is less sharp at corners(I can't
	quantify the resolution statement because I couldn't measure the 
	numbers). With both lenses set at f/8, resulotions of the two
	lenses were nearly indentical at center, while the corner image
	of the Fuji seemed to be fairly close to the Nikkor. It's pretty
	much the same story after f/8, i.e. center indentical, corner
	very colse. Actually, the corner image of the Fuji got better at
	corner comparing to the Nikkor at the minimum apertures(f/32 and
	f/22). I guess, but not sure, this is due to diffraction limits.
	All Fuji images had visible light fall-off at corners, I'd say
	a little more than one-stop at very corner. That's the only
	thing I don't like about the Fuji. But if I only look at the
	6x7 portion of the image, it's quite satisfactory. I couldn't
	give an evalution of the contrast of the lenses due to, first
	the scene and the exaggerated saturation of Velvia film, and
	second, the light fall-off of the Fuji lens. Overall, I'd say
	that Fuji 690-II is an excellent camera. It is full capable of
	producing razor sharp 20x24 prints. It's Texas Leica nickname
	is well deserved.

---------------------------------
 Li Du | duli@prony.colorado.edu
---------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sch@unx.sas.com (Steve Holzworth)
Subject: Large Format Book Review
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:30:10 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.

Steve Simmons, publisher of View Camera magazine, has recently released a
revised (1992) edition of his book: 

  "Using the View Camera"  ISBN 0-8174-6353-4 ($22.50 paperback from Amphoto).

If you are just starting in 4x5, get this book before any others. Simmons
covers all of the basic material needed to shoot large format, without
beating you over the head with useless (at the early stages) formulas and
physics.

He covers the basics, but also gives summaries of the information you need
to go shoot SOMETHING right now :-). In particular, he gives the types and
ratings for most contemporary sheet film, including the notch pattern, and
his suggested exposure index. Once you've gotten into it a little further,
he describes how to go about determining your own, personal, EI for films.
He supplies a reciprocity table for most B/W and color films, suggests what
lenses (size) you should probably get first, depending on what you shoot,
and what filters you should get first (also depending on what you shoot).

Overall, the book gives a practical summary of the information you need to
know up front, without having to immediately learn all the arcanery. When
you are ready, he gives reasonable (although brief), coverage of the down-
and-dirty math and sensitometry, and covers the uses of the various camera
movements.

Joe Bob says, buy it! Even if you have other books (Adams, et al), this is
still a good book to have as a concise summary of all of things you typically
want to know, but don't want to dig around for forever.



--
Steve Holzworth
sch@unx.sas.com                         "Do not attribute to poor spelling
x6872                                    That which is actually poor typing..."
SAS Institute - Open Systems R & D                      - me
Cary, N.C.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders)
Subject: Re: Autofocus Accuracy
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:41:30 GMT

| Will a fast lens on an AF camera produce a sharper image 
| than a slower lens? 
			-Michael D. Coren

My personal reaction (not backed by scientific evidence) is that
this cannot be the case. Sharp focus is sharp focus. My experience
with the Nikon 8008s seems to bear this opinion out. When there
is not enough light for the AF system, the lens "hunts"; it does
not focus "less critically". I've also checked out the focusing
accuracy of my 8008s using a Nikon magnifying eyepiece; and I
can detect no discrepency between the focus I achieve by eye
and the camera's idea of sharp focus. Letting the camera do the
focusing frequently IS faster, however.

			   -Alan


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: Looking for a good P&S
Reply-To: jchen@ctt.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 21:57:08 GMT

The latest issue of Popular Photography has a writeup about comparing
a 20x30 print taken by a Nikon P&S (either OT 200 or 400) and a Nikon SLR
(with Nikon glass of course).  It is claimed that PP staff could not tell 
which was better.

Go figure.

Jason Chen
From: ehr@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Ernest H. Robl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Mac, of course (Was Re: IBM vs. Mac for stock business)
Summary: stock photo experience
Keywords: image manipulation
Date: 11 Jan 93 04:34:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

In article <1993Jan10.082941.4823@pony.Ingres.COM>, jab@Ingres.COM (jeff bowles) writes:
> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:
> >
> >    Yeah, an officemate of mine kept saying how slow Macs are...
> 
> This isn't related to "rec.photo". They're both terrific environments.
> They're both terrible environments.
> 
> Take this string elsewhere. Anywhere else. I'd prefer to hear about
> topics for photo essays here.


Well, on the other hand, some folks might want to learn about marketing
their photos here.

While I haven't seen every single posting in this thread, the ones
that I have seen, are, in my opinion -- and you can take it for what
it's worth -- missing the mark.

The stock photo business is not about manipulating photos by computer.
If you are going to market stock photos, the basic things you will 
want are good (1) database programs, (2) word processing programs, (3)
accounting programs.  You can get packages that attempt to offer
combinations of the above, or you can mix and match your own.

There's not a single market out there for stock photos -- rather there
are many niche markets.  What type of computer support will work for
you depends a lot on what you are comfortable with -- and exactly
what you are trying to do.

To me, a highly portable computer is much more important than
image manipulation capability.  (Though my portable is not my
primary computer.)  It's very important to me to be able to write
(including taking notes) and communicate while on the road.


I'm not saying there is not a market for computer-manipulated
images.  But, rather, that it's a very specialized one.  To
compete with the big folks there, you are going to have to make
a really substantial investment.  While some stock agencies are
producing sample catalogs in digital format, I don't know any
major publishing markets (other than clip art markets) that are
actually marketing pictures in digital format at this point.

The basic quality of your photos counts a lot more than what kind
of computer you have.

(I've been marketing stock photos for more than a dozen years and
have sold to a variety of magazines and a vast range of book
publishers -- for whatever that's worth.)

Just my $.02.  -- Ernest

-- 
"My other computers are Nikon N8008s and an SB25." -- Ernest H. Robl
Ernest H. Robl (ehr@ecsvax)  Durham, NC, USA   +1  919   286-3845
                                         FAX:  +1  919   286-1696
This .signature meets plate C specifications (for rec.railroad fans)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Shoulder mounts for bird photography (long)
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:46:03 GMT

In <1993Jan7.092244@ultb.isc.rit.edu> ecldco@ultb.isc.rit.edu (E.C. Loyd) writes:

>Since I'm not about to reproduce the article here,
>acs@genie.csri.toronto.edu wrote that when using a
>tripod, when the bird moves to the right, you have to pan
>to the left, making the use of a tripod anti-intuitive.

Well, it's not my article.  I was reposting an article by John
Shipman.  (I forgot to tack the word "REPOST" into the subject
line.)

>Would you be so kind as to explain why your tripod
>works differently than mine?  When I see a bird go
>to the right in my viewfinder, my camera goes to the
>right as well.  I never have problems with it.

I think he means that if you have a tripod with the "panning" head
(with the lever and handle), when the bird moves right, you push the
lever to the left.

There is a new kind of tripod head with a ring-shaped handle that is
supposed to be positioned on the other side of the camera to make
panning less confusing.  (I think it might have even won some kind
of award!  So there! :-)

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

Newsgroups: rec.photo