HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: koolish@bbn.com (Richard M. Koolish)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Simple checks for layman on lens and camera.
Date: 3 Jan 93 13:55:29 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:

>I've never been to a photo fair, but it doesn't seem to make sense for
>someone to sell something cheaper just because they're at a fair.
>Indeed, some go to similar events *assuming* the prices are lower when
>really they're not.  Shop around a bit before going to the fair.

    Photo fairs allow you to shop around in one place.  Do this and
    you can sometimes find a bargain.  When I got a Nikkor 24mm f2.8,
    I looked through photo shows for a year and a half before I found
    one at a price I was willing to pay.  I have found that photo fairs
    are a good place to shop because the selection is much larger than
    you would find at any single store and because you can actually
    see and touch the equipment.  Prices can be good because not every
    dealer is trying to gouge you, and because they don't always want
    to lug all the stuff home.  Because the shows bring in so many people
    they often bring items that might not sell otherwise.


>Friends of mine went to an auction of assets from a computer
>distributor that closed down.  Many items were being sold for *much*
>*higher* than market value because the bidders didn't do their
>homework.  (And all items were sold "as-is"!)

    Some people are stupid.  You shouldn't try to compete against
    somebody who wants to pay more than something is worth.  I once went
    to an auction where there were a dozen enlargers.  They were being
    sold one at a time.  The bidding for the first one finished where
    only one person wanted it of course.  The auctioneer then wanted to
    sell all the others at the same price.  Guess what? Nobody else was
    interested at that price, so they were passed over.  Both auctioneer
    and customers were stupid on that one.


>Unless you can develop a test roll there, I can't see how you could
>make any kind of comprehensive test.  Maybe the shutter sticks.  Maybe
>the metering is off by erratic amounts.  Maybe it stops working if you
>bang it a certain way.  Maybe the lens elements are slightly out of
>alignment.  How can you test all of this in a day?

    You pays your money and takes your chances.  You can also ask the
    dealer for his name and address, get a receipt, and ask if he will
    take back things that don't work.  It also helps to bring along
    a working camera and light meter so you can compare exposure
    readings and see if lenses and accesories fit and work.


>I prefer to support my local dealers.  If you wrangle enough, you'll
>get a competitive price.  You'll also have someone to go to if you
>have questions.  If you have problems, you know where they "live".  :-)

    My local dealers don't have much in the way of used equipment or
    very good prices.  Why not support reasonable dealers wherever they
    are.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis)
Subject: Re: Photo CD
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:27:08 GMT

In article <PD.92Dec21195152@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.165605.6886@ircam.fr> francis@ircam.fr (Joseph Francis) writes:
>
>>I think you overestimate the stability of photographic media.
>
>I don't think I do. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that I was
>comparing archival prints with PhotoCD (since I responded to a post
>claiming that CDs are the most most stable archiving system heard of
>(see article <1gr4nmINNc1t@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>).
>
>>In many ways, the stability of photographic media are related to their
>>cost - which is to say, the amount you spend for good preservation 'up
>>front'. I think it would be safe to say that a Photo-CD is about as
>>stable as the media (snapshots) which it is intended to replace.
>
>Yes, that is probably a safe assumption. For archival purposes PhotoCD
>is not the answer, though.

I backtracked through the message tree and found that the original
question was, indeed, archival storage. The feed I get on the french
(IRCAM) machine is quite strange, I think. I also didn't discuss
plastic fracture if photographic paper expands and contracts with
different humidities...
-- 
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Subject: Re: Developing Tech Pan; hints?
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:55:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.231716.19183@unet.net.com> nowacki@porsche.net.com ( Michael Nowacki I.T. Database Contractor) writes:
>My objective is to produce negatives with finer grain than the ASA 100
>films I have learned to work with: FP4 and T-MAX.
>
>I found myself out of film when preparing for a shoot last weekend, so I 
>bought 2 rolls of TP and exposed 1 at ASA 25 as advised for pictorial
>applications.
>
>The seller made a point about TP being originally intended for microfilm
>use, and that it has very high contrast characteristics. Beyond this, it
>appears that my (limited) experience in processing will be adequate for TP
>using Technidol and following intructions for temp and timing.
>
>What I want is to see if I can approach the look of medium format with
>my 35mm equipment.

   Being another medium format shooter want to be (and in some occusion,
when the moon is just so and the tide is just so, I even dream about
large format), the only b&w film I use is TP and TMAX100.  I use
Rodinal one shot for TP diluted 1:100.  At 68 degree, I soak it for
about 7 minutes with 5 sec agitation every minute.  What you will get
is ultra fine grain and unbelievable tonal range.  Nothing in 35mm
format can touch it.  Unfortunately, at ASA25, it's a damn pain in
the ass to use.  I use 1:3 diluted MicrodolX for TMAX100, and it suprise
me with acceptable result enlarged to 8x10.

-Anthony
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: michael9@nadine.cs.mun.ca (Michael Sullivan)
Subject: How do you photograph fire?
Keywords: fire
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:01:49 GMT


  Here in my city we've just had one of the biggest fires in fifty years.  I
happened to be in the area, and had my camera with me.  Unfortunatly, I
only had half a roll of 100 print film left, no tripod, and extream winds. :-(

  Anyway, how should fire be photographed in order to preserve the look and
color of the flames, while still getting some background?  It seems to me
that when I develop the roll I'm going to find that I'll either have pictures
with lots of flames and no background, or pictures with background and a 
big white/yellow spot where the flames are.

  Is it just a matter of doing some extream bracketing?


-- 
|uunet!garfield!michael9|'"Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing,"|
|michael9@odie.cs.mun.ca| says God.  "But you have given us proof," says      |
|POB 756,St.John's,Nfld.| man, "Therefore you do not exist. QED." "Oh, my,"   |
|A1S 1G8                | says God, and disappears in a puff of logic.'       |
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: andpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: develop Cx negs??????
Reply-To: andpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:57:06 GMT

In article <92366.171607U3C@psuvm.psu.edu>, U3C@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>I found some old color negatives in the basement of my folks place from back in
> the early sixties. I sent them in to be developed and got them back with the n
>ote that they do not offer prints from Cx negatives. I phoned a few other place
>s in town and they said the same thing.
>
>Does anyone know where I can send these negatives to have them developed??

Try Rocky Mountain Film Lab located in Denver (I think) CO

andy
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jab@Ingres.COM (jeff bowles)
Subject: About the 10S (a short story)
Reply-To: jab@Ingres.COM (jeff bowles)
Organization: Ingres, an Ask Company, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 1 Jan 93 04:46:33 GMT


[Summary for those who want the punch line: gimme a suggestion
for a subject to shoot. I haven't seen one of the photo exchange
thingies in a while, or I'd use its topic. Ya see, I just got this
new 10S, and....]

I have been ignoring the LONG chain about N90 versus 10S (I didn't
even really notice the Subject line!) until recently. When I found
myself looking to get back into 35mm (my FM2 and lenses was stolen
a couple of months ago, and I got a Pentax 645 to play with and
decided medium format wasn't my bag since I don't have darkroom and
don't have patience to wait a week for developing and don't have
beaucoup bucks for lenses for a 645!) I looked at the Nikon line and
the Contax line.

Contax, you'll recall, gets you access to Zeiss lenses. (Yum.) But
they're pricey, at least as pricey as the 645 lenses I was bitchin'
about.

The dealer at Adolf Glasser in SF pointed my at the Canon line, and
talked up the 10S. (He'd listened to me say "I want the ability to
just let it do it all, or to let *ME* do it all.") Within 5-10
minutes, I was sold, and they arranged to find one from another
store.

(In my eyes) the rec.photo string bears this out: to me, it seemed
to say "if you are starting from scratch, the 10S is terrific; if
you have an investment in lenses, the Canon direction ignores your
investment, somewhat. Nikon doesn't do that to you, quite."

So I now have a new 10S, a 25-80 zoom, and the Sunpak flash I had
with the Pentax (replaced the adapter with a Canon one), and I've
made a promise to myself:
	*** NO NEW EQUIPMENT ***
I figure that I should now spend "quality time" making pictures, not
buying more toys. Experience is the best teacher, and all that.

So given that I'm in San Francisco most of the time, and this is
the equipment I have, gimme a couple of suggestions what to do a
"photo essay" on. It's just for myself, but I figured I'd ask
for ideas.

And by the way, "thanks" for contributing to that string on the
N90 and the 10S. It was really helpful for me.

	Jeff Bowles
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lds@ccrl.nj.nec.com (Duan-Shin Lee)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Organization: C&C Research Labs, NEC USA, Princeton, N.J.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 19:05:13 GMT

>and, in my mind, Nikon has basically orphaned it now that they realize
>Canon was right to put the motors in the lenses all along.  With the
>money you save, you could add another lens to your system, like the
>100-300 USM.

I don't understand why it is right to put moters in the lenses.
If you have 10 lenses, it is more economical to have one motor in
the camera body than to have 10 motors, one in each lense.
I suppose that the advantage to put the motor in a lense is
that this way the motor produces more torque to move
the glass.  If so, only BIG lenses need motors in them, such as
the 600mm/f4.  For wide angle to short telephoto lenses, the F4,
N90 or even the 8008s do not focuse perceivably (at lease to me)
more slowly than the Canon's.  However, the extra motor in the
Canon lenses (wide angles to short telephotos) is going to cost
more for the buyers.



-- 
Duan-Shin Lee
C & C Research Lab, NEC USA
Tel:(609)951-2456
lds@ccrl.nj.nec.com
Xref: sparky rec.photo:22834 ba.general:5450
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,ba.general,sgi.general
Subject: Where to process color film - avoid Calypso Color Labs
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:58:57 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

A friend of mine had a very bad experience with Calypso Color Labs
in San Jose, and I'd recommend you avoid them.

Paul
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Harald.Brandt@eua.ericsson.se (Harald Brandt)
Subject: Re: EOS lens list
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Sweden
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 09:30:51 GMT

In article <5360837@hplsla.hp.com> barryg@hplsla.hp.com (Barry Gunn) 
writes:
> Could someone who
> owns one or has seen one, please confirm this? If the close focus is 
> really .5 meters, I'd be alot more exited about it.

Yes, it is 0.5 metres

(Sorry if others have already responded to this, I am working myself 
through a backlog of rec.photo)

/Harald
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: schapin@smiley.mitre.org (Susan L Chapin)
Subject: Re: Constucting Small Darkrooms
Keywords: darkroom
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:48:54 GMT

Re a small table to support trays in a bathroom -> (collapsible)
darkroom:  I use a metal folding range/table I bought in a camping
store.  It is intended for supporting frying pans over a fire, but it
works perfectly to support two 8x10 trays over the sink basin.  It is
about 1' by 2' and stands about 1' high.  This arrangement
leaves the rest of the vanity surface free for two more trays on one
side and a small print washer on the other.  I can reach the faucet
under the camp range cum table, too.

Other useful goodies are a drying rack (bought in a BedBathBeyond
store) intended to dry clothes over a bathtub.  I lean it up against
the wall and use small binder clips to hang RC prints to dry.

Hope this helps,

  - susan
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Phantom lights-pse explain
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:12:13 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie


dbsbanka@solomon.technet.sg (Teo Pit Koon) wrote:
> how do you explain some of the photos which showed the transparent picture
> of a group of persons with the wall (background) super imposed on it!

Double exposure.  The film wasn't wound on between shots - presumably the
winder mechanism failed.  It's easy to do if your camera allows you to fire
the sutter without advancing the film; most cheap cameras don't, but
mechanical failure or film slippage can produce the same effect.

cheers - jack



-- 
--  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
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shiu@cae.wisc.edu (Shiu Wong)
Subject: Tony Stone Worldwide US Address
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin--Madison
Date: 31 Dec 92 11:01:01 CST
Keywords: Tony Stone Worldwide

Hi there,

If anyone knows the address/1-800 number of Tony Stone Worldwide 
US office please do tell me.  Thanks in advance.

email: shiu@cae.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: Dumb Photographers ... NOT!
Reply-To: jchen@ctt.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 17:12:36 GMT

|> > Just for comparison, it bears pointing out what happens in Japan.
|> > The Russian national Bolshoi Circus is visiting Tokyo.  Announcements
|> > came over the loudspeaker, saying that it is forbidden to use flash
|> > or video lights.  And the audience obeyed!  This is a country where
|> > it isn't always legal to tell the truth, but people are sure obedient.
|> 
|> Who's dumber?  The guy who unquestioningly obeys or the one who never
|> does?

Who's dumber? The guy who has the common sense of understanding the risk of 
using a flash in a Circus or the one who never use the brain?

|> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|> I speak only for the left hemisphere of my brain.

Me too.
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Tilt Shift (Was: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?)
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:03:21 GMT
	<1992Dec29.173003.11459@spider.co.uk> <C01926.JyJ@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
	<1992Dec30.123108.8794@eua.ericsson.se>
	<1992Dec30.115348.14686@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <1992Dec30.115348.14686@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:

>Indeed, used as a straight lens, it would seem that the TS-E lenses are
>fantastically sharp.

Well, not fantastically sharp. Here's the test results on the Canon
TS-E 24/3.5 (and the Canon EF 24/2.8 for comparison):
(From Aktuellt Fotografi, Jan. 1992)

They measured the Modulation Transfer Function with the lens focused
at infinity. The MTF was measured at 10, 20 and 40 lines/mm.
A weighted average was computed with the result from 10 lines/mm
giving 57% of the average, the result from 20 lines/mm giving 29% and
the result from 40 lines/mm giving 14%.
This and some other biasing gives a theoretical maximum MTF of 0.9
(MTF is normally between 0 and 1).

Canon TS-E/3.5
MTF at f/3.5: 0.72
       f/8.0: 0.76
Weighted average: 0.75
Distorsion: -2.2%
Focal length: 25mm
Rating: 3.5
Comment: The rating is lowered a bit because of the somewhat low
resolution wide open.

Canon EF 24/2.8
MTF at f/2.8: 0.77
       f/4.0: 0.80
       f/8.0: 0.79
Weighted average: 0.80
Distorsion: -2.5%
Focal length: 24mm
Rating: 4.1
Comment: A very good lens. Tangential resolution decreases only
slightly towards the edge.

The Canon EF 24/2.8 was the 24mm lens with the highest rating
(together with the Sigma 24/2.8 (MF and AF)).

Here is a list of the rest of the 24mm lenses (ratings only) for a
quick comparison:

Leica Elmarit-R 24/2.8:   3.4
Minolta AF 24/2.8:        3.5
Nikkor AF 24/2.8:         3.8
Nikkor F 24/2.0:          3.8
Nikkor F 24/2.8:          4.0
Sigma AF 24/2.8:          4.1
Sigma 24/2.8:             4.1
Tamron 24/2.5:            3.0
Zeiss Distagon T* 25/2.8: 3.0
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 15:54:51 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Subject: Re: Query: Books on Photo composition
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Keywords: 


I'll jump into the fray here and recommend what is probably my favorite
photo book, beating out Ansel Adams' _Examples_ for that honor.  I
cannot recommend it highly enough.  5 thumbs up, A++ rating, etc., etc. 

	Photographing the Patterns of Nature
	Gary Braasch
	Amphoto, New York, 1990
	ISBN: 0-8174-5429-2 (0-8174-5430-6 for paperback)

If you want to try for it in a library, it's:

	TR721.B73 1990
	     or
	778.9'3 - dc20

depending on the cataloging system in use there (I'm not sure what the
extra stuff after the Dewey decimal number is, but it's from the
cataloging info inside the book).

I have the paperback version, and it cost $22.50.  It is an amazing
book.  Lavishly illustrated with 160 color photographs, it's 144 pages
long.  The photographs are worth buying the book for.  The text is worth
buying the book for.  Combined, they are a knockout combination.  Gary
Braasch is an amazing photographer, and I don't throw that sort of
recommendation around too lightly!

The contents are:

	Part I
	Recognizing patterns
		The fundamental shapes
		Perceiving patterns
		Patterns in color
		Analyzing textures
		Documenting motion and growth

	Part II
	Designing an image
		The creative process
		Composition
		Creatively combining patterns
		Abstractions and symbolism

	Part III
	The business of nature photography
		Becoming a professional
		Developing an assignment
		Marketing strategies

There is also a bibliography at the end.

If you shoot nature at all, you want this book.  Trust me.

Oh, and, of course, I have absolutely no financial interest in your
purchase of this book.

Did I mention that I like this book? ;^)

Geoff

-- 
Geoff Allen          \  Many people come, looking, looking, taking picture....
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \  No good.... Some people come, see. Good!
geoff@pauling.inel.gov \   -- Nepalese Sherpa, quoted by Galen Rowell
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale,ga.forsale
From: ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (Eric Chen)
Subject: 4 Sale: Canon lenses: >=$50 FD & EF
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson SC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:30:33 GMT

Canon 28mm f:2.8 FD      $50
Canon 85mm f:1.8 FD SSC  $130
Canon 70-210 f:4 EF macro  $150

-----------------------------------------

Also some Canon accessories (filters, cases, EOS 650 body).
E-mail me for the list

Above lenses are in mint condition, w/money back warranty if you pay for
the both way shipping.

Happy New Year

Eric

Call me at (803)6548817 to confirm the deal in case I sold it.
From: blue@sequent.com (Gil Delavous)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lithiums vs. alkalines (was Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended)
Date: 21 Dec 92 08:11:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Dec21.081107.3013
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

>>
>>This is certainly a possibility, but I remember that Canon's own
>>promotional literature claimed about *half* the number of rolls for 
>>a 630 using lithiums as Nikon claimed for an 8008 using AA's. And
>
>Canon claims 150 24-exp rolls in the best case (standard lens,
>normal temperature, focus and shoot). I would have a hard time to believe
>that 8008 can get 300 rolls on a set of 4 AAs, under any case.

WOW!!! 300 rolls! I owned a  8008 and the maximum number of rolls I was able
to make with a set of 4 AAs was around 20. I even did not use AF a lot. I
really would like to meet a guy able to shot 300 rolls with a set of 4 AAs :-)

Now for Canon I can tell that I would consider myself as lucky if I could shot
10/15 rolls with a 2CR5 battery using the build-in flash sometimes.

Gil.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Disc Cameras
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<1992Dec31.141736.1@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.141736.1@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu> dwing@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu (Dan Wing) writes:

   In article <1992Dec30.181543.23429@vestek.com>, don@vestek.com (Don Labutay) 
   writes:

   > Whatever happened to the disc cameras that kodak first introduced a few
   > years ago. ...

   The negatives were, if I recall, about the same size as the old
   110's.  Print quality was very poor, and the point-and-shoot 35mm's
   were just starting to become popular at about the same time.

You are too kind.  Disc negatives were 8x10 mm, somewhat smaller
than 110 negatives which I think were 11x17mm.  Disc pictures
were quite a lot worse than 110 pictures.  At least in the early
disc cameras, and I'm not sure there really were any later ones,
the flash fired with -every- picture and the user could not replace
the batteries!  You had to send the camera back to Kodak.

Disc cameras stunk on ice.  That's why they vanished.