HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: g8@cbnews.cb.att.com (k.d.tentarelli)
Subject: Re: x-rays at airport affecting films
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:49:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr09.143718.8340@bmerh2.bnr.ca> lavoie@bnr.ca (Marc Lavoie) writes:
 
>My advice, for what it's worth, is to put your film in a transparent plastic
>bag that you ask to have hand examined.  They often refuse at first, saying
>that the machine is film safe but, what the heck, they are YOUR films and they
>often couldn't care less (or know anything about film).  Insist a bit and they
>will usually do it (I only got refused once, at Narita, plus, the guy didn't
>speak english and my japaneese isn't goot enough for an argument).  It also
>helps if you use a brand of film that uses see-through canisters (Fuji).  That
>way, they can see everything without even opening the bag.

I second Marc's advice....see through plastic canisters in a see through
plastic bag.  Confidently hand the bag to the attendent and courteously
request a hand inspection.  At this point it's effortless for the attendant 
to hand inspect the bag so only someone really willing to expend energy
would give you a hard time.  Of course there are such people in the world,
but so far I've never had a problem, even at Narita. Speculation --I always 
carry fairly large quanities of film and that may help show the attendant 
that I'm a serious photographer. 

On the other hand, I've also had 100 speed film buried in a carry on bag and 
inadvertentley passed through a half dozen x-ray machines without noticeable
effect.  So, despite stories of x-ray machines from hell, the odds are
in your favor it you take the easy way out and let your film be x-rayed.

Ken
From: barryg@hplsla.hp.com (Barry Gunn)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 23:08:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Flash meters?
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

>
>I think I do not need feature-loaded expensive one.  I might use
>multiple flash units for portraits.   Some Minolta flash meter is said to
>measure "multiple" flashes.  And I do not understand what that means.
>	----------

I think what they're getting at is if you want a specific f/stop (for
depth of field) and your flash isn't powerful enough, the meter will tell 
you how many times you have to pop the flash to get the right exposure at 
that stop.

BG
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mwfolsom@hydra.unm.edu (Mike Folsom)
Subject: Re: B&H: Please help! 
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 18:49:52 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr13.231251.25547@a.cs.okstate.edu> ong@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) writes:
>
>The order was put in exactly two weeks ago with a guy named John at B&H.
>A Sigma 180/5.6 APO micro, at the advertised price.  I asked would it be
>here in a week, and he said yes.  Now it is two weeks, it is still not here,
>and they charged the amount to my credit card the day I ordered.
>
>I have dealt with NYC shops before and most of them were disastors.  But after
>seeing support for both B&H and Andorama in this group, I thought maybe
>there are some that are all right.  So, if you have dealt with them
>before, what works?  I mean how do you make them send you the goods?
  <<<stuff deleted>>>

I constantly have the same problem with B & H.  If I order something
from them I don't plan for it to be in Albuquerque for about 3 weeks.
Beware of their express shipping charges - on one order of $80 they
added about $30 for shipping (it was mostly film!).

Why do I continue to use them you ask - well if I can plan ahead they
save me many $'s.  The problem is that all of the NY camera stores are
bad - B & H appears to be the lesser of evils.  I'd buy things locally 
but the pricing of papers and films at camera stores here in Albuquerque
is amazing.

Michael

P.S. - I tend to fax in my order.  That gives me a written record 
and I don't have to put up with rude salespeople.  Re: promises
about shipping - well what they say doesn't matter anyway so why 
ask.

_______________________________________________________________________________
M.W.Folsom/Biology/UNM/Albuqueerque,NM87131/505.277.4228/mwfolsom@unmvm.unm.edu
From: kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: shutter lockup - FM2
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:22:04 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Tredyffrin

In article <DAVIDD.92Apr10125853@wimpie.noaapmel.gov> davidd@noaapmel.gov (David Doll) writes:

>I was reading an older Nikon systems book and in the section dealing
>with the FM2, they mentioned that the FM2 doesn't have a mirro lockup
>button, but you can get by, by using the self timer and pushing the
>sutter...something like this; I don't have the book in front of me.
>Anyway it didn't make any sense to me. Could anyone offer if you
>can/can't do a mirror lockup in a FM2. Thanks.

>David

I think it works like this.  The self timer gives you some time (10 seconds
is a wild guess) between the time you press the shutter release and the time
that the film is actually exposed.  This gives you time to run in front of
the camera and get into the picture.  >>> It also gives the camera a chance
to lock up the mirror at the instant that you press the shutter release, then
the mirror box has 10? seconds for vibrations to settle down prior to
exposure. <<<

Since mirror lockup is a side effect of self timer, I wonder what happens
if you cancel the timer?  Does the mirror stay locked up?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken McFadden        kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com
Unisys Corporation  kjm@cnmsa.tredydev.unisys.com
P.O. Box 203        work: (215) 648-3742
Paoli, PA 19301     home: (215) 675-0382
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: For Sale
Date: 7 Apr 92 05:34:47 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <92097.151047TOM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> TOM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>Deardorff 5x7 Home Portrait: With three 5x7 film holders, good wood, lens board
>                             no lens.  Tom (408)268-2955 Home
>                             $350.00 BO    (415)926-3426 Work

I'm not real familiar with this model. How old is it? Is it basically
a field camera, like their current models? What movements are
available? What's the bellows extension? Is a 4x5 reducing back
available (I don't think Velvia comes in 5x7). I've been (not very
seriously) saving up for an 8x10 Wisner or Deardorff - I might consider
this as an alternative.

Thanks!

Steve Gombosi
sog@craycos.com
(719) 527-1508 (Home)
(719) 540-4324 (work [direct line])
From: tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:41:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Drying silica gel?  (Was fungal growth on lenses)
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

In rec.photo, ejh2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU writes:

>  In article <HSONG.92Apr4144758@ardour.bellcore.com> hsong@ardour.bellcore.com (G. Hugh Song) writes:

>  [stuff deleted]

>  >
>  >Does anybody know how to dry silica gel to reuse it after a long period 
>  >of use?
>  >
>  >	Hugh
>  >
>  I would try either putting it in an oven on low heat for a little while
>  or try drying it with a hair dryer.

250 degrees F for 16 hours minimum is the reccomendation. I'm sure the
time mentioned is for a fully saturated sample. A hair dryer won't do
much good if you're not the patient type.


>  BTW I heard from an associate in one of the camera stores that I worked
>  that it is bad to keep the silica gel after the packaging material for
>  the equipment has been opened and unsealed because it absorbs water too quickely and after a very short time just becomes a moisture magnet.  The
>  reason, he said that the camera companies are able to use silica gel is
>  because the equipment is in sealed containers (ie. the plastic bag
>  inside the foam packaging) and there is really not much moisture for the
>  silica gel to absorb.  Since I have heard many different opinions and am
>  not sure which is right, could someone, anyone please try to enlighten
>  me?

Basically, if you leave the silica gel where it can absorb water, it
will absorb water. No problem - that's it's job. It will of course do
you the most good if you bag it and the equipment in plastic.

tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com
From: duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Li Du)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Some arcane questions
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:36:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Apr9.093638.19029
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <12042@> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes:
>Does anyone know a way to find out whether the optical formula of an AF
>lens is the same as that of the corresponding MF lens?  For example,
>the 20/2.8 is, I believe, the same lens in two guises (I remember
>reading this in a Nikon brochure somewhere?). How about the 50/1.4,
>it has the same number of groups/elements in both versions. Why does
>the 28/2.8 have 3 fewer elements in the AF version? How does it compare
>against the 28/2.8 AIs? And so on.
	There have been speculations that 28/2.8AF and the old version of
	70-210/4.0AF used the same optical formulars as the 28/2.8E and
	70-210/4.0E, the only differences were the AF versions had better
	coating. You need someone who realy knows Nikon from inside out
	to tell you what happened to each AF Nikon lens. I don't think
	even B. "Moose" Peterson, who wrote the "Nikon System Handbook",
	knows everything although he sounded pretty authoritative in the
	book(there are quite a few errors in his book). By looking at all
	the Nikon data I have gathered, my guess is the following:
		Nikkor AF lenses that use/used the same formular 
		as their corresponding MF lenses are: 20/2.8, 
		24/2.8(old & new), 50/1.4(o&n), 50/1.8(o&n), 
		28-85/3.5-4.5(o&n), 35-70/3.5-4.5(o&n), and 
		maybe 300/2.8EDIF(non-motor). 
	One important factor that affects the AF design is that AF lenses
	use rack-pinion system to drive the focusing. It is not practical
	to desgin an AF lens that has relatively heavy moving part and
	requires large amount extension to get into focus, as in the case 
	of medium telephoto to telephoto lenses, or an AF-IF lens that has 
	to turn relatively large angle to get into focus, as in the case of 
	super-tele IF lenses, because auto-focus speed will be too slow. 
	So Nikon had to either change the designs of many AF lenses to 
	shorten the extension such as in the case of 55&60 AF micro and 
	some of the AF zooms, or change the design to make it IF, such as 
	in the case of the 180/2.8AF-EDIF. As for super-tele lenses, looks 
	like Nikon is going to put drive motor into their big guns, just 
	like the way they made the new 300/2.8AF-EDIF-motor.
>Finally, how about "classics" like the 105/2.5? This must be one of
>Nikon's all-time best lenses. Is it going to be produced in an AF
>version?
	I don't think so, becasue it requires relatively large extension
	and all five lens-elements(not a small mass) move when focusing,
	therefore AF speed will be slow and the gain over the MF version
	will be minimal. Nikon is still making the MF 105/2.5 and I think
	they will continue the production as long as there is a profitable
	market for it.

-----------------------------------
 Li Du | duli@prony.colorado.edu
-----------------------------------
From: andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:41:48 GMT
Subject: Minolta Panoramic P&S???
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

Does anyone know about Minolta's panaromic point-and-shoot camera? Like,
what's the image size, and does it have a decent lens?

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    % Andy Cassino                                       %
    % Hewlett-Packard - Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: blueml@forwiss.uni-passau.de (Guenter Blueml)
Subject: trademarks from japan
Organization: University of Passau, Germany
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:07:42 GMT

Is there anybody in the newsnet who comes from japan ?

I would like to know prices of camera bodies and lenses
from their origin country.

thank you, gue

blueml guenter___________________________________________________________  ___
bayerisches forschungszentrum fuer wissensbasierte systeme               \/   \
univ. passau, bavaria, west-germany______________________________________/  ___
blueml@forwiss.uni-passau.de                                             \     |
_________________________________________________________________________/\___/
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: B&H: Please help!
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:25:23 GMT
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ

In article <kun7raINN3km@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:

> Moral of the story: B&H will say they have something in stock even if
> they don't.  I suspect everybody does this.  Other than that, their
> service was good.

The last time I ordered something from Adorama, the salesman said

	`My computer says we have just one of these in stock.
	 It isn't a very popular item, so I doubt someone else
	 will get it before I put your order in.  However, sometimes
	 the computer is wrong about how many of them we have.
	 Would you like to hold on while I check for sure?'
	
And this was for a $30 item!
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
From: lc0v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Luis Abdon Cifuentes)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: View Camera maganize?
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:30:38 GMT
Organization: Doctoral student, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I have seen the magazine View Camera mentioned several times in the
bboard, but I can't find around here.
Can somebody please post its phone number or address?

Thanks in advance

Luis
Newsgroups: rec.photo,su.market,ba.market.misc
From: gidi@Hilbert.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami)
Subject: for sale: Nikon 2020 (Auto Focus)
Organization: Brotherhood Of Breath
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:45:33 GMT


Body: Nikon N2020 (auto focus version of N2000)
      dual auto focus (single/continuous), focus assist, etc
Lens: AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 

4.5 years old, but I really didn't
use it all that much.

Asking: $220

				email: gidi@cs.Stanford.EDU
				phone: (415) 858-2808 - home, machine
				       (415) 723-3088 - office

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: B&W film reversal processing
Keywords: black and white slides from B&W/color films.
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:05:28 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida


After receiving a few very helpful replies on my request for info on Kodak's
T-max 100 Direct Positive Film Developing Outfit, I went ahead and tried it.
Thanks, everyone, who replied.  The results were great.

I found out that the price ($25-30 in local stores) was not so bad considering
the kit can be used for 12 rolls of film (you have to buy fixer separately,
but that's not so bad).

Now on to greater topics!  I need some more help.  After processing a roll
of T-max 100, I started thinking ... the chemistry should work not only on
any black & white negative film, but on color films as well (to yield B&W
transparencies).  There are three possibilities that I am mostly interested
in.  They are:

	1)  Reversal processing of Tech Pan for pictorial photograpy.  I want
	    to see how sharp 35mm slides can be.  The Kodak Kit has directions
	    for use with Tech Pan and high-contrast (copy) work.  Is it
	    possible to substitute Technidol for the kit's first developer
	    to achieve normal contrast (contrast index of ~0.6)?

	2)  B&W reversal processing of Kodachrome 200.  Why?  Because shooting
	    T-max 100 at EI 50 makes it really slow.  I am guessing that
	    it is possible to shoot Kodachrome 200 at EI 200 and get good
	    black & white slides from it.  And maybe something weird and
	    interesting will happen.  Actually, I suppose it would be more
	    sensible to request info on reversal processing T-max 400 and
	    T-max P3200.

	3)  B&W reversal processing of E-6 films.  Well, why not -- C-41
	    films too!

In each case, I am guessing that it is possible to get decent results,
depending on what is used for the first developer, development times for
1st and 2nd developers, and the EI that the film is shot at.

I have been thinking that there is some general method to use to convert
from "normal" processing, i.e., "6 minutes in D-76 for a negative with
contrast index of 0.6" to the reversal method.  But right now there are
too many loose ends for me to figure it out.  For example, I don't know
how active the 1st reversal developer is compared to Tmax or D-76 developers.
It would help me greatly to know what kind of contrast index (and overall
density) the 1st reversal developer achieves.  Would it by any chance be
the same as if I shot T-max 100 at EI 50 and processed it to be a "pulled"
negative?  I don't think so, but then I'm confused ... I guess I need a
little reversal processing theory to start out from.

If anyone has suggestions, please, please offer them to me; you will save me
a LOT of experimentation!  I prefer email to save net bandwidth, but I suppose
posting has positive side effects as well.

- Jay Ts
uunet!pdn!tscs!metran!jay
uunet!myrrdin!tscs!metran!jay
uunet!sybus!myrrdin!tscs!metran!jay
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: question about mirror lenses
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:45:33 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <122380015@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rjn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland) writes:
>In rec.photo, John Mavroudis <YSZBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>> I would like to know what the advantages (obviously size)
>  * Weight (can put camera on tripod instead of lens)

I find that mounting my Sigma 600mm on the tripod works better . . .

>  * You can almost always have it with you (light, fits in camera bag)

They do tend to be a bit large (though short).

>> and disadvantages of the mirror lenses are.
>  * Aperture typically f8 (refractor with same focal length can be faster)

Typically F8 for 500-600mm cats.  Apparently there was a craze at one
time for 250-300mm cats and they were typically F5.6.  Longer cats are
even slower--like the Bausch&Lombe 800mm F10, the Celestron C-90 used
as a 1000mm F11, various Cambron long-and-F10 (up to their 2500mm
F10).  Celestron has a new 500mm F5.6 which (according to the ads and
new product writeups) comes with both eyepiece and camera
adaptor--plus an "F4 adapter" (for an additional $160).  Note also
that (for the video folks) Canon now has a 250mm F4 for the L1
camcorder that's a cat.  The F-stop chosen is a compromise between
finder brightness and depth of field.

>  * Small aperture may not illuminate split-circle focusing adequately.

You bet!

>  * Camera usually needs "stop-down auto exposure" for minimum hassle.

Any camera that meters through the lens should work.  Just think of it
as having a total F-stop range of a single value . . .

>  * No / or expensive screw-on front filters.

Yeah . . .  I really have no desire to buy 95mm filters.  At least the
screw on sunshade gives pretty good mechanical protection.

>  * Limited selection of drop-in filters 

Anybody got a good source of 30.5 mm filters?  That's what the Sigma
600mm takes.  It comes with 5--clear, 1 stop ND, yellow, red, and
orange.  (I don't have with me at work, so I can't define them any
tighter than that.)

	--Hal
-- 
=======================================================================
Hal Heydt                    |    Vegetarians eat vegetables.
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |      
510-823-5447                 |    I'm a Humanitarian.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sparks@col.hp.com (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: Printing-out papers
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:53:33 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

In article <1992Apr12.214450.25939@hubcap.clemson.edu> stmwang@hubcap.clemson.edu (Sam Wang) writes:
>OK Larry. Is there much difference between the old Kodak Studio
>Proof and making your own Salt Print using fixed out photo paper?
>Figure you could answer that.

The article I read about Printing out papers was written by the president
of The Chicago Albumen Works.  He said that the commercial P.O.P's were
very similar in look to prints on hand coated Albumen paper.  Is this the
same as Salt Prints?

John Sparks
From: monson@caviar.ECE.ORST.EDU (Tyrus Monson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Need source for lens repair tools
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:41:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis

In article <1992Apr7.173529.17952@adobe.com> meastman@adobe.com (Mark Eastman) writes:
>I'm looking for a source for tools such as
>optical spanner wrenches to take apart a 
>lens to remove some rather large flakes
>of black paint between some elements. Can anyone
>recommend a source for lens repair instruments such as this.
>The lens is a fairly old collapsable 50mm f1.9 Serenar, probably
>not worth taking to a shop.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mark Eastman
>meastman@adobe.com


    You can purchase spanner wrenches from Edmund Scientific Co.
    I believe that Calumet also carries spanner wrenches.
    Indeed, I believe the wrench I bought from Calumet a few years ago
    had "Edmund Scientific" written on it. Curiously, the Calumet
    price was lower than that in Edmund's catalog! Don't know if this
    is still the case.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Subject: Re: photog. in Nat'l/State Parks etc.
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:40:00 GMT


In article <1992Apr9.191828.6301@talon.ucs.orst.edu>,
monson@caviar.ECE.ORST.EDU (Tyrus Monson) writes:

|>   Generally, you do not need special permission to take and use photos
|>   (though in recent history, some park rangers were abusing their
|>    authority on the matter.)
|>   Public access to certain areas of parks and (especially) wildlife refuges
|>   are restricted. Your photographic activity will be accordingly restricted.
|>   Photography, or any other activity, which is destructive to sensitive
|>   habitat is going to be restricted. If your photographic activity
|>   interferes with normal park activities (eg. you tell visitors to get
|>   out of the way because YOU are a photographer) you will get in trouble.
|>   And you might as well check with the authorities BEFORE you start 
|>   erecting a scaffold to get a better view.
|>   In simpler terms - use good judgement.
|>   But the photos you take are yours use as you see fit.

I like this answer, but you don't mention how you know these things.
Issues like this are legal matters, I would think, and those sorts of
things require justification, i.e. something written down somewhere and
signed by the appropriate governing authority.  If you can post again
and let us know how you found these things out, and what reliable
reference we might sight when some park ranger abuses his authority,
I'd be most grateful!

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