HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidd@noaapmel.gov (David Doll)
Subject: mechanical cameras
Organization: NOAA, Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:55:08 GMT


Hello, I'm new to this newsgroup so if anyone could tell me where/if theres a
FAQ, I'd appreciate it. Second, I've been out/away from photography for about
15 years or so and I'm now just starting to get back into things. I used to 
use a Olympus OM1 for hiking/climbing; it worked great in the cold weather, 
light, etc. I've been told they aren't made anymore. Q1: does anyone know of
anybody (stores, etc) that still sell them? Q2: what's the state of machanical
cameras now-a-days. Any thing I should look out for or avoid. Thanks much for 
the help and info.

David

--
David Doll              |  #include <std.disclaimer> Standard disclaimers 
                        |  apply here...only my opinion,not my employer, etc.
NOAA/PMEL/OCRD          |  
7600 Sand Point Way NE  | --------------------------------------------------
Seattle, WA 98115-0070  |
voice:(206) 526-6862    |  C++: The language where only friends can access
fax:  (206) 526-6744    |  your private members.   
davidd@noaapmel.gov     |
From: monson@caviar.ECE.ORST.EDU (Tyrus Monson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: photog. in Nat'l/State Parks etc.
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:50:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis

In article <f43y02fMc4tD00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.182940.3139@odin.corp.sgi.com> michelle@play.esd.sgi.com (Michelle Boyd) writes:
>>
>>I read something recently which made me wonder
>>about selling photos I have taken in National /
>>State Parks, Recreation areas, Beaches, and
>>Wildlife refuges/preserves.  I assumed that
>>since I was a US citizen, these areas belonged
>>to me as long as I wasn't doing anything to destroy
>>them.  Do I need special permission or releases
>>to sell photos taken in these areas?
>>
>>michelle
>
>Apparently there *is* something going on here.  At a recent workshop wiht
>Ray McSavaney he told of a couple of incidents which were very disturbing
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to me.  Apparently at some or more California State Parks professional
>photographers are now being required to obtain permits.  It seems that
>at least a part of the reason is due to liability law suits - people
>tripping over the tripods and suing the state under the "deep pockets"
>doctrine.  Photographers falling off cliffs and suing the state.  The
>photographer is required to demonstrate some fairly significant level
>of insurance before being issued a permit.
>
>Appropos of this he told me of John Sexton being chased away from Pebble
>Beach State Park (This is a beach south of San Francisco, not the golf course.)
>John explained to the ranger that he teaches photography and sells some
>of his work.  The ranger told him that anyone using a tripod is considered
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to be a professional and must have a permit.  John wound up leaving and
>braved the bureaucracy and got a permit.
 (deletions)
>Barry
>

 How current is this information? I heard of these abuses some years
 ago, but since then I also heard that the Park Service backed off
 of its position. Are the national parks really requiring permits of
 anyone using a tripod as of this date? (my opinion is that they are not.
 but it is an opinion.)
 when challenged. Does anyone
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Cambridge - watch out!
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:54:16 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Dan Ruderman writes:

> [ ... omitted anecdote illustrating the marginal honesty of Cambridge
>   Camera ... ]
> 
>	I assume there is some way to get something worthwhile out of
>	those guys -- they've been around too long to simply be
>	crooks.  Any suggestions?

Don't forget the old saying:

        "You can fool some of the people all of the time and
         you can fool all of the people some of the time and
         that's good enough for most purposes ..."

:-) :-) :-)


Barry


-- 


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp.       | "Any fool can face a crisis - it's     | 
| bjs@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com           |  this day-to-day living that wears you |
|                                   |  out." - Anton Chekhov                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction.  Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions.  Unfortunately, this has been  |
| said of me as well.                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: immaturity on rec.photo
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:32:57 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


Dyer Lytle wrote:

>
>>Gentlemen,
>>
>>I have not been following the thread about copyright so, unfortunately,
>>the following is taken out of context.
>>
>>The following rhetoric compares favorably with the sort of flame wars
>>that occur in groups like "talk.abortion" or, perhaps "alt.flame".
>>I don't think it really accomplishes anything but it does make the
>>rec.photo less pleasant to read.
>>
>>If the people involved in this (and you know who you are) have something
>>something constructive to say about PHOTOGRAPHY or have a question about
>>PHOTOGRAPHY we would be very glad to read and respond.  Otherwise,
>>please take this discussion to another group or correspond by e-mail.

And Carl Madson concurred:

>I HAVE been following the thread, since much of the topic is important to 
>serious imaging professionals and users, but my vote's still with Dyer on
>keeping the crap out of rec.photo. It's a potentially useful thread, but
>personal flames don't belong here.

I agree with both.  I got tired of the thread after a while and didn't
pay too much attention to it, but I did notice that it was cross-posted
to other groups.  I assume that the flames came from immature participants
in those other, less civilized, groups.

Barry
From: yoshi@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil (D M Yoshikami)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Enlarger, heat absorbing glass.
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:52:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Naval Medical Center

In article <1992Apr9.004456.28409@ucunix.san.uc.edu> mandayrv@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Ramanand V. Mandayam) writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>I recently purchased a used b&w enlarger (the Omega B22 XL). Among the many
>accessories that I got along with it, there is a heat absorbing glass. I did
>read somewhere -- I am not sure when and how long ago -- that these pieces
>of glass are recommended for long exposures so that the film does not buckle
>under prolonged heating.
>
>My question is: Is heating really such a serious problem and is this the
>most recommended way of suppressing the heating. 
>
>If yes, can somebody enlighten me where to place this piece  of glass. Alas,
>the glass is not an original equipment supplied by the manufacturer (OMEGA) 
>but was purchased separately. Hence, the users manual for the enlarger does
>not have any descriptions on how to use those glasses.


The problem with heat depends on what kind of film you're using.  Your
typical roll film is much more sensitive and will buckle all over the place
if it gets hot enough; whereas most sheet films are at least twice the
thickness and are less vulnerable to buckling.

From what I understand, Colour films tend to be more finicky about heat
(many books that I've read say you'll need a piece of heat-absorbing glass)
than B & W, but that's only second-hand info.  

I've seen the glass usually close to the enlarger bulb and far away from the
negative; you might take a look at other enlargers to see what you see.

DY :-)


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
D M Yoshikami  :-) ;-) :-) | Internet: yoshikami@usuhsb.ucc.usuhs.nnmc.navy.mil
May the Forth be with you! | Bitnet  : yoshikami@usuhsb.bitnet
***  !!xob X*NU V METSYS T&TA eht ni renosirp dleh gnieb m`I  !pleH  !pleH  ***
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: rasmuse@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Erik Rasmussen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Help...Need info on archive site
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:10:50 GMT
Followup-To: rasmuse@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Erik Rasmussen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: CS Dept. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.


Hello fellow photographers,

I was wondering if their was an archive site for past reviews, info, etc.

If thier isn't, could anyone tell me about the Max9000 (Minolta)?  I am a 
Journalism major, and am thinking of getting the camera that I would like to 
use as a pro.  Any info would be appreciated O-)

Thanks in advance,
Erik

Oh... if you just want to e-mail, that would be fine O-)
From: garyf@puente.jpl.nasa.gov (Gary Friedman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Will there be a Maxxum 8xi??? Soon???
Keywords: Maxxum
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:07:20 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Advanced Engineering Group

In article <65584@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

>o Various folks I talk to on GEnie have talked to them about futures
>  for pro-class gear and while Minolta won't commit to anything, they
>  admit that they don't feel they can compete successfully with Nikon's 
>  pro gear, so they are focussing more on the consumer and advanced 
>  amateur stuff. 

That's it!  As soon as Canon comes out with the EOS-2, I'm selling my
9000 stuff!

(Why do the words, "Apple III" keep ringing in my mind?)

>but the people waiting for a 9xi are probably going to wait for a 
>long time (unless Minolta's blowing smoke).

This is counter-productive.  They're losing loyal fans (it's not the
first time!).

And speaking of Minolta competing with pro gear, I was in Minolta's
west coast repair center during the 1984 LA Olympics, and the arrogant
guy behind the counter was pointing out how Nikon's repair center was
bustling with crowds, while the traffic in the Minolta facility was
rather meager.  He thus concluded that Minolta professional cameras
were more reliable than Nikons, because "If Nikons were so reliable,
then how come all those pros are over there having them repaired?"

I didn't bother pointing out other explanations, like maybe not that
many professionals were using Minolta.  His mind wasn't ready to
accept such suggestions.

		
							-Garyf
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Friedman                   Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA.  91109        (818) 306-6193
garyf@puente.JPL.NASA.GOV || {cit-vax,elroy,psivax}!devvax!garyf
From: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Shooting Neon Lights
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:10:40 GMT
Reply-To: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

In rec.photo, MSPERKO@kentvm.kent.edu (Mike Sperko) writes:
>These neon signs are hung on the wall of a finished rec room.  There
>will be some regular lighting but the signs pretty well light up the
>whole room (this guy has some really neat old beer signs).  Any
>recomendations about daylight vs. tungsten film?

I know that daylight-balanced print film works.  However, due to the
high-contrast, high-color-saturation nature of this, tungsten film may
work, too.  I recommend a slow film with good color saturation, like
Ektar 25 (neg) or Kodachrome 25 (slide).

A neat trick with neons is to use a zoom lens and zoom while shooting.
The right neon sign will make a really neat streak effect.  It takes
a couple tries to make it work.  Of course, you need a long exposure.

>Filters?

I recommend not using any.

>Exposures?

This is tricky because of the high contrast nature of the shooting.
If the wall is much darker than the lights, they may get oversaturated
if you rely on an average-based auto exposure.  Exposing close to the
lights may cause the picture to come out too dark.  If using slide film,
bracket your exposures or do some test shots.

Neon signs flicker at a 60 hertz rate, so fast shutter speeds are out.
You'll need a tripod.  I recommend shutter speeds of .5 sec or faster.


   /|/| /||)|/  /~_/\| |\|)[~|)/~_  |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
  / | |/~||\|\  \_/\/|_|/|)[_|\\_/  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Metering with Cat lenses.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:47:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.212329.4767@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
> In article <1992Mar31.181948.19818@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
> >In article <1992Mar30.133438.21795@demon.co.uk>, shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith) writes:
> 
> >> We note that meter readings for cat lenses pointed at grey cards seem
> >> to be about 1/2 - 1 stop over exposed.
> 
> >1-Reflection losses at the mirror surfaces. A typical aluminum mirror with
> 
> >2-The quoted f-stop may be based on the diameter of the primary mirror and
> 
> >These two effects together can account for the 1/2-2/3 stop loss of mirror
> >lenses over their rated f-stop. Now.. whatever happened to T-stops?
> 
> I found this explanation quite interesting.  However, it would appear to 
> only apply if the original complaint had to do with an external meter.
> In the case of a TTL meter, these effects should not apply, in which
> case other (geometrical/optical) explanations would be needed.  Am I wrong?
> 

No, you're right. TTL metering will take care of the problem. The wording
of the original posting "we note that METER READINGS for cat lenses.....
seem to be 1/2-1 stop overexposed", indicates that the meter reading (TTL)
was not what was expected, rather than any photographs taken with the lens
being wrongly exposed. Meter readings through cat lenses (TTL) will often
seem to be overexposed by 1/2 stop or more when compared to an external
light meter, IF you take the stated f# of the cat lens (f8 usually) to be
correct. In fact the lens may really be f10 or so, in which case the TTL
meter reading is correct.

Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs


From: andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:15:50 GMT
Subject: Re: FA really better than FE2?
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

>  I think the FE-2 was introduced in the late 70's, prior to the release
>  of the F3. Due to some of the qualities mentioned above a number of 'pros'
>  started using the FE-2 instead of the F2, producing some of the problems
>  mentioned above, problems which were fixed with the release of the F3. In
>  spite of some of the problems experienced by some users it may also explain
>  why the FE-2 seems to receive more acclaim, as I don't believe the FA
>  came out until after the F3. Just a guess. I've looked at the F3 (I have
>  an FM-2) as the mirror lockup and 80% centerweighting looks attractive,
>  but the low flash sync speed and price don't (I also have a half-a.d mirror
>  lockup with the self timer).   
>
>  John Ongtooguk (johno@sdd.hp.com)   
>----------

No, the F3 was available before the FE2. If I'm not mistaken, the F3
preceeded the FE... even the FE was able to out-sync the F3 at 1/125 of 
a second! My recollection was the F3 was available in 1976 and the FE in
1978. I remember the big concern with the F3 was how long the new-fangled LCD
readout would last! (Nikon said 10 years, BTW).

Obviously, the F3 succeeded the F2. It is not so obvious that the FE and FM
were the successors to the good old FTn. The FE being the "F-Electrical"
and the FM being the "F-Mechanical". (Don't ask me what the "Tn" in FTn stood
for!)

Both the FM2 and FE2 came along in the early 80's; their major advance was
the 1/4000 second shutter that sync'd at 1/250 for the FE2 and 1/200 for the
FM2. It wasn't until the FM2n before the mechanical camera also sync'd at
1/250.


    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    % Andy Cassino                                       %
    % Hewlett-Packard - Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 12:03:12 EDT
From: John Mavroudis <YSZBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject:    question about mirror lenses

I would like to know what the advantages (obviously size) and disadvantages
of the mirror lenses are.

thanks
John Mavroudis
yszbh@cunyvm
From: klimbal@mayberry.Eng.Sun.COM (Philip Klimbal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Nikon 2020 System Forsale
Keywords: Nikon, 2020, SB-20
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:04:03 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mayberry



Nikon Autofocus Camera System for sale.  All components in excellent 
condition.

	Nikon 2020 Body
	Nikkor 35-70 f3.3 Zoom
	Nikon SB-20 Flash
	Nikon Camera Bag


All for only $485.00.  

For details email me <klimbal@eng.sun.com> or call (408)865-0693.


--
--
Phil Klimbal				"Let's take a ride,
klimbal@eng.sun.com			 along with the dogs tonight,
standard disclaimer			 in Suburbia."
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: garyf@puente.jpl.nasa.gov (Gary Friedman)
Subject: Re: Minolta SLR info wanted
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Advanced Engineering Group
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:51:31 GMT

In article <92105.100101ICSAFF@ASUACAD.BITNET> ICSAFF@ASUACAD.BITNET (Allen French) writes:

>What is
>the story behind Leica selling an XD-11 copy? What kind of agreement
>did the two companies have? Why would Leica do this?

I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this, so let me state the
disclaimer up front: I HAVE NO PROOF!  I heard this from a friend who
repairs cameras for a living, and emperical evidence seems to support the
theory.

	Minolta owns Leica.

Maybe not all of it; probably only the SLR division.  But the similarity 
between the SLR lines (and in a handfull of cases the rangefinders) and 
the identical construction of their high-end lenses tend to support the 
theory.  The official literature says that the two companies simply have 
close ties; for example "Minolta cooperated with Leitz Gmbh to produce this 
new (XE-7) shutter."

In all but one case in the examples below, Leica modified the original
Minolta product, put their name on it and tripled the price.  (The
exception is the Minolta CLE, which I believe is a modified version of
Leica's CL rangefinder.)

	Minolta				Leica
	----------------------------------------
	XE-7				R3, R3MOT
	XD-11				R4, R5
	50mm f1.4			(same)
	100mm f2.5			(same)
	CLE				CL

(Historical note: This same source told me that the XK Motor was
originally developed as the Leica version of the XK and was to be
named the R4; but Leica chose instead the less-rugged XD-11.)

These are all of the examples I can think of.  As before, I'm offering
this as an unconfirmed rumor, and I welcome corrections.  But before you send 
flames, just imagine you're a Porsche owner and someone told you that you're
driving a VW.  (There have been examples of identical engines between
the two companies.)


						-Gary Friedman
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Friedman                   Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA.  91109        (818) 306-6193
garyf@puente.JPL.NASA.GOV || {cit-vax,elroy,psivax}!devvax!garyf
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Anyone going to PhotoProExpo?
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:20:47 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA



Carl Madson writes, citing Ken McFadden:

Ken:  ...  I also have a couple of muslim
Ken:  backgrounds, ...             ^^^^^^

Carl: How portable are these guys? How do they look when you take them out of 
Carl: thecarrying case?  ;-*)

To say nothing of what their mental state is.  Personally, I think I'd be
somewhat ticked off ...

Carl: [Sorry, just a bit zaggy today..]

No need for apology.  Should've picked up on it m'self!  Must be slipping.  
:-)

Barry



-- 


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp.       | "Any fool can face a crisis - it's     | 
| bjs@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com           |  this day-to-day living that wears you |
|                                   |  out." - Anton Chekhov                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction.  Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions.  Unfortunately, this has been  |
| said of me as well.                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: bear@harlqn.co.uk (Andy Edwards)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: HELP! Bluish tint on color prints
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:38:28 GMT
Organization: Harlequin Limited, Cambridge, England


Hi!

>Hi folks,
>here's the scenario:
>     A friend and I, each carrying a different point-and-shoot autofocus camera
>     (Pentax and Minolta) went on vacation to Washington, D.C. together.
>
>     We shot the same subjects at about the same time. (all those monuments)
>     Both of us used Kodacolor 200 ASA 24 exposure film.
>     He went to an ordinary drugstore for developing.
>     I took mine to a photo products store.
>
>     Mine came out with a bluish tint and kinda dull whereas 
>     his came out more like the real thing.

At a guess sounds like you got the chemicals just at the end of their
useful life. Without looking at the negs. who can tell if they're
affected, one answer is: get another set of prints made up somewhere
else of the ones that look horrible. If the negs were developed with
duff chemicals I'd take the whole lot back to the shop & demand some
compensation!

>     Wonder why. 
>
>I feel like I've been cheated/I wasted all that extra money.
>
>Does any of you have any insights into my problem?     
>Please reply by e-mail.
>Thanks.
>
>PS. The bluish tint worked out great for shots around the harbor that I had 
>    shot earlier in California on the same roll of film though.
>    The water and sky have this great blue color like I used a polarizing filter!

Yeah, you can get funny effects with developing processes. I sent an
Ektar 1000 film through C41 process by accident, every print came out
in a slightly sepia brown wash. The greens came through - very odd.

>-- 
>Siddharthan Ramachandramurthi   |    
>Department of Computer Science  |    
>The University of Tennessee     |   
>Knoxville, TN 37996-1301, USA   |  Internet: siddhart@cs.utk.edu                  

+--: Andy Edwards :----------*=================*------------------------------+
| Macintosh fire fighter,    | Harlequin Ltd.  |      uucp: bear@harlqn.uucp  |
| deity, PostScript language | Barrington Hall |     janet: bear@uk.co.harlqn |
| level 2 porter and PAP     | Barrington      | applelink: harlequin         |
| server clone originator.   | Cambridge       |     voice: 0223 872522       |
|   *Life is strange, yeah   | CB2 5RG         |            +44-223-872-522   |
|     compared to what?*     | England         |       fax: 0223 872519       |
+----------------------------*=================*------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.photo