HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Sample model release:
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:43:09 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm (Evil Spock)) writes:
: In article <1993Jan8.182335.8144@cello.hpl.hp.com>, jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
: |> In article <C0JovH.E9F@news.ucs.mun.ca> hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca
: |> (Craig Hamm (Evil Spock)) displays a sample model release.
: |> And David Jacobson responds:
: |>
: |> If somebody wanted me to sign a release with the "alteration" clause,
: |> I'd refuse.  There is just too much possibility for abuse, especially
: |> since a previous clause (I didn't include it above) waives the right
: |> to pre-publication approval.
: 
: 	I've actually never used it.  I didn't draft it.  If somebody
: 	ELSE wants to sign it, it's their problem then.   I also requested
: 	that somebody post a 'better' one.  Where is YOUR submission ?

I don't know if this is going to help at this point, but here is what I've
been using.  It is sort of a mish-mash of releases I have found in several
places, including in this newsgroup about a year ago.

My release is formatted to print out on a simple dot matrix printer and
take up one sheet of paper.  It includes a provision for the model being
a minor -- see the parent's consent section below.  If that is not needed,
I simply cut it off.

Now the disclaimer.  I have no idea if this a "good" release in the legal
sense.  No one has ever taken me to court, soo...  Use it at your own risk.
I'd love to have it critiqued, so fire away!

------------------------ begin model release --------------------------

		MODEL RELEASE

In return for valuable consideration, I,

________________________, hereby consent to
   [model: print name]
the use by <photog name> of any photographic portrait
or picture of me or in which I may be included
for art, advertising, trade or any further
purpose whatsoever. I release <photog name>, his agents
and all persons acting under his permission from
any claim by me for the use of such material.

I am	(a) under 18 years of age
	(b) 18 years or more of age.


________________________________________________
[model's signature]			[date]


        address: _______________________________


		 _______________________________


         phone:  _______________________________






		PARENT'S CONSENT


I, ________________________, am the parent/guardian
    [parent: print name]
of the model named above, and have read and fully
understand the contents of the above, and I am in
agreement with it and consent to it on his/her
behalf.


________________________________________________
[parent's signature]			[date]


        address: _______________________________


		 _______________________________


         phone:  _______________________________
------------------------ end model release --------------------------
-- 
Jay Ts
uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
phone: (813) 979-9169
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: New interchangeable lens rangefinder 35mm?
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:22:28 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

The new shutterbug has a tantalizing hint about a new
rangefinder 35mm w/3 lenses probably due out in 93 from a major
manufacturer of professional grade SLRs.  Anyone have
a clue about what they're talking about?
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale,rec.antiques
From: ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (Eric Chen)
Subject: Re: 3 Slide Projectors Give Away or Sale (>$20)
Organization: Clemson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:43:46 GMT

ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (Eric Chen) writes:

>I have three antique slide projectors which are older than 20 years.
>I would like to give them away or sell them to the highest bidder.

>1. Airequipt 129 w/4" luminal lens, w/4 carousels (each carousel hold
>	100 slides), manual control, excellent working condition.
>		Sell $40 OBO + Shipping.

>2. Argus 200 w/4" f:3.5 Argus lenses, one roller tray (hold two slides
>	only, the simplest tray), manual control, excellent working
>	condition.        Sell $20 OBO + Shipping.

>3. Bell & Howell Robomatic 750 w/lens, remote controler, spare bulb.
>	Since I can not find the tray for this one and internal
>	magnify lenses have been removed.  I will consider this one
>	for parts only.
>			SELL FOR $0.00 OBO + Shipping.

>If you are going to bid higher than the price I am asking.  You are
>encourged to do so and you will get the higher possibility to get the 
>projector.

>#1 and #2 projectors are ready to play, every parts in excellent
>condition.  No adjustments are necessary for them.  All the lenses
>listed above do not have fungi grown inside, optically perfect.
>#1 and #2 use 500W light bulb, #3 use 750W light bulb. 
>(not necessary to use the above light bulbs; you may replace your
>own low waltage bulb).

>Please reply to this account.

>Eric
--------------------------------

All the slide projectors are sold.  Thank you for all the replies.

Eric
From: eric@acis11.tamu.edu (Eric L. Nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Infrared questions
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:14:42
Organization: Computer Science, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: acis11.tamu.edu
In-reply-to: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu's message of 5 Jan 93 17:59:39 GMT

I played around with IR film in high school and remember using the
same developer I used with normal b&w film and got pretty good
results. As far as the speed....i don't remember, but the important
thing is that IR focuses on a different plane so you have to adjust
the focus and I remember playing around more with this than with the
speed. 
--
----------
                                   || Eric L. Nelson (Eric.L.Nelson@tamu.edu)
    _/_/_/_/                       || Research Associate
   _/        _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/  || Autonoumous Underwater
  _/_/_/    _/   _/   _/  _/   _/  || Vehicle Controller Project
 _/        _/_/_/    _/  _/        || Texas A&M University
_/_/_/_/  _/   _/   _/   _/_/_/    || (409) 845-0085
From: photo@cs.ubc.ca (Photo-swap central)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Photo-Swap Theme Portfolio #93-1 Nominations reminder
Date: 7 Jan 1993 22:03:10 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: lucille.cs.ubc.ca
Summary: Theme Portfolio nominations are open till Jan. 10.
Keywords: Photo-swap, Portfilio, Pictures, Nominations


			Request for Nominations
                               Reminder
			
			Theme Portfolio #93-1

		     Return by January 10th, 1993

	Well, It's now official:  The theme portfolios are now being
	revived - with many thanks for support to Brian Godfrey.

	Nominations for Theme Portfolio #93-1 Are open until Sunday, Jan. 10
	at 5:00PM. If you have an idea for a theme portfolio for this month,
	now is the time to submit it.

	voting on nominations will run from then until Jan. 20th.


As part of the democratic operation of the Theme Portfolios, all readers 
of rec.photo are invited to submit nominations for the next Theme.  These 
nominations will be placed on a ballot and the ballot will be posted for 
voting in ten days.

Some examples of Themes might be:

   Self-portrait
   Closeup
   A flower
   Etc.

Submit nominations to:
Stephen Samuel
Email:   photo@cs.ubc.ca 		or,  alberta!ubc-cs!photo

Pmail:   Stephen Samuel, 
         243 W 16th 
         Vancouver, BC, Canada
         V5Y 1Y8                 <-- Canadien postal code.

Phone:   (604)876-0426 (home)
         (604)822-9248 (work)
-- 
Stephen Samuel          (604)822-9248           photo@cs.ubc.ca
                                        or,  alberta!ubc-cs!photo
Photo swap co-ordinator (with much support from Brian M. Godfrey)
The first prerequisite to enjoyment is playing the game.
From: tim@nijinsky.ipac.caltech.edu (Tim Conrow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: "Unmatched" filter coatings: new sales-droidism??
Date: 5 Jan 93 11:27:52
Organization: California Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: nijinsky.ipac.caltech.edu

I was just at my local camera shop and a salesman (I'll avoid putting
him in the sub-class "sales-droid" until I hear some comments from
y'all) layed a new one on me:

I was there to by a UV filter for a new lens and was price comparing
Tiffen and Nikon. I looked at the Tiffen and noted that it was not
coated (multi or otherwise). The salesman said, roughly, "It shouldn't
be coated. If the anti-reflection coatings don't match between the
lens and the filter it can cause color balance problems."

I know how AR coatings work and am not completely ignorant of optics
in general, so my plausibility indicator sank near zero when he said
this. I told him the only difference I could see different AR coatings
making is the color of the back scattered light that contstitutes
flare. He had no specific answer to this and simply repeated "It
*does* make a difference."

Well:

a) If the transmitted light contains any color cast as a results of
the AR coatings then it's a f*cked-up filter and should not be
touched, at any price.

b) Since the filter coating is first in the optical path it's pretty
hard to see how it could have much of an affect on the back-scattered
light when it still has 16 AR coated surfaces to pass through. The
only issue is how much additional flare is contributed by the filter:
Coated - not too much. Uncoated - lots.

c) If the only difference is from the color of the flare, so what? 

Sounds like some of the same sales motivated pseudo-scientific
bull-hockey one gets in the audiophile world (ever heard the one about
putting a rubberband around CD's to improve the sound?). I see three
possibilites:

1) He got this from Tiffen sales literature explaining why this filter
is not multi-coated and that this is A Good Thing.

2) He got this from Nikon literature, explaining why one should never,
ever, ever, ever buy anything but Nikon filters for Nikon lenses.

3) I'm not so arrogant as to think I've necessarilly thought of
everything. Maybe, just maybe, he's right.

So I seek net.wisdom. Have any of you ever heard of this before? I
would love to go back to the store today and tell the guy I just
consulted with several thousand photographers, amateur and pro, and
that he's full of ... uh ... never mind. I may still have to buy stuff
from this guy.

Skeptically yours,
               Tim

tim@ipac.caltech.edu
From: Harald.Brandt@eua.ericsson.se (Harald Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: More on Lithium
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:12:44 GMT
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Sweden

In article <1992Dec30.120831.15177@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> 
acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
> It is interesting to see that Canon can adjust the sensitivity to
> voltage.  Are you going to go for the modification?  Did the Canon
> rep. say anything about what you'd be risking?

I plan to go for the modification, since I want to battery warnings to be 
meaningful, i.e the last warning (blinking symbol) should mean "there is 
no point in trying to squeeze out more of the battery since it will soon 
not wind or charge flash",  and I do not need any warning to go and buy a 
battery since I will need a spare battery anyway since I may (as I have 
actually done) forget to turn the camera off "L". (The manual says that 
with "B" (Bulb) the battery will only last for 6 hrs). 

Canon have not said that I risk anything by modifing.

The battery that came with the camera was a Canon, but the label also 
stated in small letters: Sanyo Electric CO. Also written was: 2CR5 Lithium 
MnO2 ("2" as an index), 1300 mAh.

The battery I bought to replace was the cheapest I could find: 
2CR5M ("M" as an index), Sunrise (also in small letters Asahi Dry Battery Co).  It is clearly a plastic holding for cylinder cells that are clearly shorter than the total length of the package. (Is that the meaning of index "M"?)

Regards /Harald
From: mic@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Clarke)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:03:17 GMT
Subject: Blad vs Mamiya (Lenses, Weight, Other)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Ft. Collins, CO
From: jchen@cs.cornell.edu (Jeffrey Chen)
Subject: Zoom Ring Loose on 70-210 USM
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:53:17 GMT

Is this a flaw in my lens or is the zoom ring on the Canon 70-210 USM
lens very loose? It is loose to the point where if I directly point
the lens towards the ground, gravity will automatically extend the
lens with the zoom ring turning with it.

Jeff Chen
jchen@cs.cornell.edu
 
-- 
____________________________________________________________________
Jeffrey Chen                                Home Telephone: 272-4221
CS Wandering Ghost                           105 N. Quarry St. Apt 2
                                                    Ithaca, NY 14850
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Looking for a quiet slide projector
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:54:04 GMT
Distribution: rec.photo
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Can anyone recommend a really quiet slide projector?

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Looking for Telephoto Flash Outfit (300mm+)
Keywords: telephot, flash, howto
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:42:05 GMT

In <1ifmsfINNpf2@fido.asd.sgi.com> jmw@random.asd.sgi.com (Jim Winget) writes:


>I'm trying to put together a flash "extender" for use with 300mm+
>telephotos. Currently I use a Canon EOS camera with the 420EZ flash.
>What I'm looking for is a "how to" article for building a flash +
>fresnel (sp?) lens projection system to focus the flash out where it will
>do the most good (420EZ has a 80mm min coverage). I thought I'd seen
>an article in popular/modern/outdoor photography, but after hours of
>searching back issues all I could find was a stock shot of George Lepp
>holding a camera equipted in the manner I've discribed (ie page 16 of
>November '89 Outdoor Photography).

>Does anybody know the reference article that describes building/buying
>this equiptment? I think there is also a parabolic mirror dedicated
>flash unit available from Norman (?). I'd prefer the reuse and lower
>cost of just adding a concentrator lens to my 420EZ but I'm open to
>suggestions.

During the summer, John Shipman posted a couple of very good articles
on bird photography, with particular detail on shoulder stocks and flash.
I will repost them.

>Thanks,
>Jim

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
From: marcel@convex.com (Marcel Bourque)
Subject: Re: Camera Shops In Montreal?
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:12:21 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan12.142144.4845@bcrka451.bnr.ca> poole@bnr.ca (Thomas Poole) writes:

>I will be heading to Montreal this Saturday and
>was wondering what places are good for used
>equipment. Please post since I still can't
>seem to receive mail.
>Tom...
 Try LaPlace, Simon's, York, NDG Photo, maybe Viala (?). Call them
first as I don' if they all sell used.

Marcel
From: hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Which Pentax MF bodies have TTL flash metering?
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:56:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <fred-mckenzie-120193095501@k4dii.ksc.nasa.gov> fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie) writes:
>
>I understand the Pentax LX has TTL flash capability.  It is considered to
>be a "Pro" camera, and doesn't have automatic exposure except for the TTL
>Flash.
>
   This is not correct.  The LX has an aperture priority AE mode.

Harry Bloomberg
hpb@vms.cis.pitt.edu
From: jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: f length equivalent to human eye???
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:10:51
Organization: I would rather be windsurfing.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com
In-reply-to: robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za's message of Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:03:24 GMT

> Is this accurate?

It can vary considerably from person to person.  For example, I am
extremely near sighted.  This means my eyes are much larger than the
normal human eye.  This is the equivalent of putting an extension tube
on a camera.  The extension tube puts the lens further from the film,
giving two effects.  One is that the camera becomes near sighted.  The
other is that images are greatly enlarged.
--
============================================================================
Jeffrey Glen Jackson  _|_Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna
jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com |     bust you up tonight."
x5120                  | Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day."
                   ~~~~~~~~~ -- Carman, "The Champion"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My parents gave me a cold for Christmas.  What did you get?
From: johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: f length equivalent to human eye???
Date: 12 Jan 1993 21:03:54 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdlg10.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0qrss.A61@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
|> mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow) wrote:
|> > Regarding the focal length of the human eye, I remember reading in
|> > several different photo mags in the past that the focal length of
|> > the adult human eye is approximately 65mm. If you set your zoom
|> > to approximately this length you'll see that the viewfinder image
|> > is approximately the same as the naked eye image.
|> 
|> A focal length of 65mm would make your eyes bigger than tennis balls.

   True. I recall that the focal length is about 20mm but it also
   depends upon what you're talking about:

   1. A 'normal' perspective is provided by 35mm format focal
      lengths of around 50mm to 60mm, but the coverage of the
      eye is obviously more than the approximately 45 degrees
      offered by the format/focal lengths mentioned. 

   2. For determining what focal length of lens will provide
      what magnification I recall that you assume 200mm to
      250mm divided by the lens focal to obtain magnification
      for use a loupe; a 50mm f1.4 makes a passable 4X to 5X
      loupe, which is what I used for awhile when I had one. 

   3. I've noticed that slides of scenes at infinity taken with 
      with my 35mm format 55mm lens seem to be about equal
      to what I see if I look at them with an 8X loupe; looking
      with one eye at the scene and with the other thru the
      loupe at the slide.  

   4. Playing around with some of my junk I found an old 8mm
      movie camera lens which was a turret of Galilean lens
      feeding a 19mm lens (assumed as the 19mm turret only
      had a clear plate of glass in it). The Galilean marked
      25mm provides 1.9X magnification of distant scenes and
      the 19mm lens used as an ocular with another lens results 
      in a 1.9X image rotated 180 degrees, meaning perhaps
      that the other lens is 36mm, as is the Galilean marked
      25mm, and that my eye is 19mm.
   
   I probably made some poor assumptions in some of the above
   but I'll appreciate getting straight scoop from someone.

   John Ongtooguk (johno@sdd.hp.com)        
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: accwai@math.uwaterloo.ca (Andy Wai)
Subject: Re: Blad vs Mamiya (Lenses, Weight, Other)
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:23:16 GMT

In article <1icv07INNplo@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> monson@ece.orst.edu (Ty Monson) writes:
>[...]
> Since you specify work that will (probably) require close-up photography
> and large depth of field, here are some relevant factors to consider:
>[...]
> Large depth of field requires stopping down lenses to small apertures,
> where resolution becomes limited by diffraction.  It makes no sense to
> pay an arm and a leg for superb medium format lenses if they will
> typically be used at f/22, f/32 to get depth of field.

Not only that, to get good sharpness at close range, you need some pretty
heavy duty lighting equipment.  Don't forget, any camera or subject movement
during exposure will be magnified beyond proportion by the close working
distance, and the resolution of the system makes sure that it's painfully
apparent on the final result.  The original poster mentioned flowers, and
those are particularly prone to air current.  Breath on it a little during
exposure and your image won't be sharp.  Ideally, you should have tons of
light to get a short exposure.  (To make things worst, at 1x for example,
f/22 will give you a effective aperture of f/45.  For 6x7, life size is
56x72mm.  Not all that small really)  The light should come from a small
source to enable flexible placement and maintain good modeling, and it
will have to be cold in order not to burn your subject up.  Sounds like
fiber optic flash to me.  But if you insist on continuous light, I saw a
300w HMI fiber illuminator in a scientific instrument catalog recently.
Some of the newer light painting tools might work too, but I haven't look
too closely at those.

So think about what you really want to do.  Make up a long term equipment
list that will let you do what you want.  Go at it little by little.  Try
to prioritize your objectives and spend your money accordingly.  And good
luck.

Andy Wai
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Advice sought on slide projectors
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:16:36 GMT

I would like to have *both* autofocus *and* remote focusing, because
autofocus is not perfect.  Given only one, I would choose manual remote
focusing.

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington     internet mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Infrared questions
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:54:44 GMT

In article <1icptpINNmcc@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson) writes:
>>2)  What speed should I rate the film?  The sheet that comes with the film
>>says 50 but my book says 200 (I'm using Kodak IR film finally; Konica suggests
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	     What book???

"The Art of Infrared Photography" by Joseph Paduano.

  -- Scott
Newsgroups: rec.photo