HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz
Keywords: opinions
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:23:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul21.202331.20228
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <70275@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>
>This is a religious issue. The people who grew up without AF/AE are gonna
>tell you that real photographers don't use AF/AE, and us scummy AF/AE users
>are gonna tell you that those other folks are old pharts who wouldn't
>understand a technical advancement if it bit them in the tushie. 

Gee, you must be reading my mind. Except I am kind of an "old phart"
throwback.....I was converted, from my manual Pentax and Nikon bodies.

>Now, having said that, a few words from a proponent of AF/AE to balance out
>the other side that's been busily bashing us for the last few posts: I have
>a Maxxum 7xi. I love it. I like auto-focus. I like auto-exposure. It helps
>make shots that otherwise I'd simply miss. The point and shoot capability is
>quite convenient when (1) I don't have time to do the prep work to do it the
>old-fashioned way because the shot would be gone, or (2) I'm feeling lazy
>and I want to let the camera do the work.

AAAAA-MEN

>What the anti-AF/AE crowd neglects to tell you: you can (surprise!) turn it
>off! Override it! Ignore it! Do it the old-fashioned way when you want to or
>need to. Mix and match your modes to fit the situation. Let the AF track a
>right-fielder chasing a fly ball while using a manual exposure for ambient
>light, or use manual focus for fine macro work while letting the camera
>figure out exposure (after you've set your depth of field and over-ridden
>the exposure so the camera doesn't turn it into a medium tone).

I have found that most of the "anti-AF/AE crowd" hasn't used an AE/AF camera
enough to even know that they can turn things on and off, they just like
to complain that the camera does it for them when they wanted to do it
for themselves......:-)

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: kbb0@harvey.gte.com (Kevin Burke)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Seeking advice on buying Nikon F
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:55:25 GMT
Distribution: w

Hello all,

I need a Nikon body to use on a tripod with 28mm and 35mm perspective
control lenses (late model Nikkors). I thought an F in good shape might
be a good choice but am not familiar with all the details of these guys.
My choice of the F was based primarily on the fact that they ought to be
reasonably priced and they show 100% of the negative area in the
view-finder (Am I correct about that?) . What should I look out for apart
from trying to get the latest model possible? MLU or some form of
pre-release is mandatory.  I'll be using an external meter so TTL meter
heads are not an issue. The lenses are current Nikon manufacture of 
about 5 years ago. Will I have a mounting problem with an F? I will also
need accurate shutter speeds below 1/30th. Would an F2 or F3 be a better
choice?

Thanks in advance, Kevin	(kbb0@gte.com)
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:47:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

From article <1992Jul30.225322.8441@PacBell.COM>, by jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria):
>>With today's desktop publishing on PC, all you need is a cheap laser
>>printer, a 386 PC, a word publisher like Word Perfect (or other more powerful
>>word processors), you can easily put out a free paper (10 copies?  distributed
>>to you friends and relatives?).  What is more you need for you to be as
>>legitimate as the state's largest paper with circulation of 500,000?
>>Is there is registry of newspaper publisher?  What? 
> 
> How much do you figure it would cost you to purchase the aformentioned equipment?

Let see...       386PC w/VGA     $1,000 (used one if you have to)
                 Word Perfect      $300 (hopefully your office have it and 
                                         your boss don't mind)
                 LaserJet 2P       $700
                 10 pc of paper      $1 (probably less)
                                 ------
                                 $2,001

Heck, most of us already have a computer, which is used to read this group!
From: oliver@redwood.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Oliver Sharp)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Have you used the Sigma or Tokina 400 5.6?
Date: 27 Jul 1992 20:20:22 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: redwood.cs.berkeley.edu

I'm going on a wildlife photography trip soon, and am considering buying
a manual focus 400 5.6.  I currently have a Canon 300 5.6; it is ok,
though a bit slow, and I am trying to decide whether to get something a
little longer.  I'd really like to get the Canon 400 4.5, which is a
lovely lens, but can't afford it.  So I'm stuck deciding between the
Sigma APO, the Tokina, and nothing.  I found a used Sigma 400 locally that
looks like it was used for about 1 roll of film, and it has nice smooth
focus.  It blacked out the split focus ring sometimes on an A-1, but I'm 
hoping that it will work better with my T-90.  I just found it today, so
I haven't had a chance to roll some film through it yet.  I figured I'd
solicit the net to see if anyone has any comments strongly in favor or 
against either lens.

I do know the trade-offs involved in off-brand lenses, and normally I'm
very reluctant to go that route, but it's a question of that or nothing.

Thanks in advance!
- Oliver

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: r2hmv@akronvm.bitnet
Subject: Compact cameras - Nikon one-touch 100
Organization: The University of Akron
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:59:29 GMT

Hi there,
 
For those of you who are interested in buying an affordable good quality
compact .. I would recommend the Nikon one-touch 100. I have had some
excellent results with this camera comparable to many high-end SLR's.
Nikon's superior optics and exposure system clearly shows in the results you
get with this point and shoot.
 
I have some excellent photographs of sunsets, wildlife (in Africa) and other
natural scenes taken with this little wonder. Typical list price is around
$100, and I can tell you it is worth more than what you pay for. Also the
flash is excellent and I am sure you'll like the results.
 
Just check it out and shoot some excellent photographs w/out hassles of SLR's
at almost 1/3rd the cost.
 
Hari Vattyam              r2hmv@akronvm.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Contaminated fixer
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 09:01:09 GMT

In article <84352@netnews.upenn.edu>, liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang) writes:
> 
>   Last time I was developing film I accidentally used Hypo-clearing
> agent as fixer.  I poured it out when I realized my mistake and put in
> the fixer and went on as usual.  The results are acceptable.  The
> fixer (kodak) has thus been contaminated by traces of hypo-clear.  Should I 
> use it again?  On film?  On paper?
> 
>   Many thanks for informed responses.

I don't think it will worry your film, but for the price of fixer, toss it any-
way. Better safe than sorry.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: RE: Any Nikon 8008 regrets (get the F4?)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:48:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <29JUL92.13976426.0037@vmxa.polymtl.ca>, by DH02@polytec1.polymtl.ca (DH02000):
> In article <b9p802=i1bCz01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> daf00@da.amdahl.com (Dana A Freiburger) writes:
>>
>>Do you regret not getting an F4 instead of the 8008? Why?
> 
> Actually I regret getting the Nikon F4s and not the 8008s (could've
> saved big $$).  I believe the 8008s (NOTE the "s") has *most* of the
> features a *non-super-professional* could ever want in the Nikon line.
> The "s" version has the spot metering plus ofcourse the matrix and
> center-weighed, whereas the non-s version doesn't have spot metering.
> The only disadvantage (if you must) is that the built in motor-drive
> of the 8008s doesn't match the 5.7 fps of the F4s, but I believe that
> the 5.7 fps is useless for a *non-professional* like me, and also that
> to use that high a fps, one must have a 250-exposure back!

I think you can use the high fps on a regular roll film, no 250-exposure back
required.  Also, the LCD-inside-viewfinder extremely helpful.  Also the
vertical shutter-release, non-plastic body (rugged use), removable head
(for shooting from odd angle), better grip, etc, etc.  And those were
the minor differeces.  
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: MF23 multi-back for F4s
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 16:15:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <22029@venera.isi.edu>, by finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn):
> 
> In article <ryhm##f.hchong@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
> 
>>In conclusion, if you do a lot of photo (and use one-hour non-pro lab),
>>the $450 is worth the price.  Of course there is the 3x-film/processing
>>price to consider, but it is probably much cheaper than going to a 
>>pro lab for enlargement.  
> 
> 	Nothing wrong with your review.  I might add that it is
> complicated and takes a bit of getting used to.  Also, it thickens the
> F4 back so that for those of us with prominant beaks, you have a
> tendancy to crush your nose a bit as you try to see all the viewfinder
> ... more so with glasses.

Agree with the nose thing.  But complicate, it is not quite, unless you
don't have the manual.  I was a wee bit worried (bought it and have to use
the bracketing feature in a few minutes after).  The manual is quite clear
as to how to use the thing.  After spending only total of an hour or so
with the manual and another 2 hours playing (total) with it, I am pretty
sure I am as good as I am going to get with the MF23.

I have often wonder how those photographers know what F-stop and speed they
used (photo in magazine, saying 2.8 at 500 on the side).  Now I know what
EVERY print what F-stop and speed I used.

> --
> Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
> Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: swatko@airbag.enet.dec.com (Mike Swatko)
Subject: Re: Novice 4x5 field gear questions
Reply-To: swatko@airbag.enet.dec.com (Mike Swatko)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua, NH
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:34:26 GMT

--

-----------------------------------------------------------
In article <f29Y032O43lc00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry She
rman) writes:
>I started out with one of the Peak 8x loupes which was doing double
>duty between the field and the darkroom.  I had trouble with condensation
>on the groundglass in cold, moist weather.

That's simple to to deal with.  All you need is the Zone VI Focusing
Snorkel.  On those cold days when you're likely to fog up the focusing
screen with your breath, you just pop the Zone VI Focusing Snorkel in
your mouth and dive under the focusing cloth.  It draws fresh air from under
the cloth, but expels the warm, moist exhaled breath down the tube and out
from under the focusing cloth.  Works for me.
 :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Swatko                             !  swatko@airbag.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corporation           !  swatko@airbag.enet.dec.com
Corporate User Publications Engineering !  swatko%airbag@decwrl.dec.com
Nashua, New Hampshire                   !  ...!decwrl!airbag.enet!swatko
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wuby@leland.Stanford.EDU (Cheng-Hsiu Wu)
Subject: Plastic Cameras
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 19:01:23 GMT

Someone brought up his doubtfulness of the plastic materials that many
modern cameras use today. Someone else (Gary) pointed that even bullet 
proof glasses are made of plastics.  Then the other person argued that
a Canon would have to be 6"x10"x8" even if it uses the same material
which bullet proof windows use. Well, based on my very limitted knowledge
of applied mechanics and material science I would have to say:

     1. There is no one word for any material, strong or weak, it all
        depends. What are we talking about here? Deformation resistance,
        fracture resistance, or yielding stress? Generally speaking, hard
        material is vulnerable to fracture; ductile materials catches
        cracks very well but yields easily. This is not a perfect world
        and that is where composite materials come in. Even the shape of 
        the structure matters a lot in terms of toughness!

     2. So, plastics are not necessarily weaker and metals are not necessarily
        stronger, either. I won't jump into conclusion before I know what 
        kinds of plastics are in question. I think this is what Gary intended
        to say when he mentioned the bullet proof windows. 

     3. We don't need a bullet proof camera ,so we don't need a 6"x10"x8"
        Canon. Is there any model from Nikon or any other manufacturer
        BULLET PROOF? After all, it's only a camera. As long as it doesn't
        break that easily, it's a good one (in terms of toughness).

     4. All Camcorders are made of plastics, any complaints? 

     5. I'm not saying that plastic cameras are stronger than metallic ones.
        Actually, I don't know which one is 'stronger' or 'better'. I can't
        afford an experiment to tell me the answer, either. Does anybody
        have any objective data to share? 

     6. I dropped my 7xi once ( from 4 feet high to a rock solid floor). The
        landing was beautiful. I was scared but a few scratches were all I got.
        Ok, this is a one-side story, but at least, my personal experience. 
        Havn't dropped my F3 yet. Maybe it's stronger but I won't try :)

     7. Trade offs. You want it light, you got to believe in plastics, or
        fiber glasses. 

Forgive me if I offended anyone. I didn't mean it. 


C. Wu
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: E-6 in Jobo
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:56:32 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC


	Does anyone know what the correction factor is for doing E-6
in a Jobo?  I seems to remember 80% of recommanded development time
is the correct compansation for continious agitation in a Jobo.  The
Kodak hobby pack didn't give any correction factor and Kodak won't
tell me over the phone either.

-Anthony
From: sjm1@eng.cam.ac.uk (Stephen Mounsey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Eye Dominancy (Was: Left-eye vs. Right-eye)
Keywords: left eye, right eye...
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:41:47 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

lannert@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:

>>>In article <1992Jul20.173326.3652@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mgsellma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Gsellman) writes:
>>>>
>>>>...take a piece of paper, cut out a hole about the size of a quarter in the 
>>>>middle of the sheet.  Then look at an object with both eyes open, like you 
>>>>normally would.  Hold the paper out in front of you while still looking at the 
>>>>object.  When you get the object in the hole, slowly bring the paper to your 
>>>>eye and you should end up with the hole over one of your eyes.  (ALLWAYS KEEP 
>>>>BOTH EYES OPEN)
>>>

>After having read about other people's experiences with that method, I
>decided to try it myself - and got stuck! I see *two* holes in the paper
>simultaneously and have the choice as to which one get to cover the
>object. (And that, of course, decides at which eye I'll end up.)

>Is this unusual? Do other people see just one hole at a time? Or am I
>doing it wrong?

>I feel a bit embarrassed to admit that I can't get such a simple thing
>right (let alone operate a modern camera ...) but it sort of worries me.

>Thank you for shedding some light on this (or through the hole, as it
>were :-)!


Well, the easiest way to establish which eye is dominant, in my opinion,
is as follows:

Hold your index finger vertically about a foot in front of you, then
with both eyes open choose some distant object, focus on this and line
your finger up with it. Yes, you'll see two fingers if you think about it,
but your natural tendency will be to line up the finger as seen through
your dominant eye. When it's lined up close each eye in turn. Through
the dominant eye the alignment will persist, with the non-dominant eye the
finger will be completely unaligned.

                              -Stephen.
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: EV units
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:16:37 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <lannert.28.711963103@uni-duesseldorf.de> lannert@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
>Sorry, now it's me who's getting confused. Maybe my recent explanation
>of EV's in this thread was wrong - by an offset of 1... So the question
>is: What is the definition of EV 1?? 
>
>In article <1992Jul23.042505.26463@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>
>>Your meter is right, you have been deceived by advertising copywriters for
>>camera manufacturers who say "EV -1" when they mean "EV -1 at ISO 100".
>
>Yes, that's a shame.
>
>>The definition of EV is:
>
>>        EV = log2(A^2/T)
>
>>        Where A = f/number of the aperture
>>              T = Exposure time in seconds.
>
>Let me try: A=1.0, T=1.0 [seconds] => EV = log2 (1^2/1) = log2 (1) = 0

You're right. It was late at night... sorry about that.

>
>>Nothing there about film speed, light level or anything else. It just
>>refers to a given amount of *exposure*, regardless of how bright
>>the light is or how fast the film is. EV1 *is* 1sec@f/1, or 2 sec@f/1.4,

Should be "EV0 *is*..."

>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>or 4sec@f/2,... - no matter what the luminance or the film speed are.
>
>So everybody seems to agree on the basic principles of EV's; but what
>is right now: the log2 formula or the 1/1/1 rule??

The log2 formula. I don't need to be able to take logarithms...I have a
Cray to do that for me ;-).


Steve
From: cg@verdix.com (Chris Goldthorpe)
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Help me identify this plant
Date: 22 Jul 92 05:39:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: verdix.4575
Reply-To: cg@verdix.com (Chris Goldthorpe)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Verdix Western Operations; Aloha, OR

I have an unusual flower in my garden and I have no clue as to what it is,
I was wondering whether someone out on the net might be able to identify it.

The plant has a single vertical stem and its leaves are in pairs which grow
off the main stem diametrically opposite to one another. Each pair of leaves
is perpendicular to the pair below it and the leaves are 4" long, 3" wide
and shaped like a oval with the outside end pointed. The plant is about two 
feet tall. So far nothing too unusual.

The flower itself is what makes this plant different. The center is crimson,
daisy like and 3/4 inch in diameter, it has at least three concentric circles 
of petals round the outside. Each petal is rolled up like a cigarette and is 
about 1 inch long. The outside ring of petals is starting to unroll - they are
pink on the inside and green on the outside. Between the center and the
petals are four little yellow things shaped like starfish. This is a really
neat looking flower and I have no idea how it came to be growing in my garden
but I would like to find out what it is so I can grow some more next year.
Any help would be appreciated.

Chris Goldthorpe
From: soley@trooa.enet.dec.com (Norman Soley)
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:32:33 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Jul23.180804.5501@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, jschwarz@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jan A. Schwarz) writes...
> 
>   Can anyone tell me how to keep the squirrels out of the pecan, peach,
>   pear and plum trees?  I'm sure there probably isn't any way, but
>   my husband just has a fit about this.  One day there is fruit, and
>   the next there isn't!
> 
>   Any advice would be welcome.  Thanks.

Squirrels are territorial, if you kill them or live trap and relocate more 
squirrels will move in to take their place (My nieghbour insists ion 
live trap, he's moved 80 squirrels since January alone and they keep on 
coming) and. 

But if you feed them they will, over time get in the habit of eating the food 
you provide instead of foraging, this will not attract more squirrels than you 
already have as they will keep outsiders away. The idea is to build the habit 
long before the fruit comes on the trees. My mother-in-law feeds a squirrel 
for this reason, if his dish isn't filled according to schedule he bangs his 
little fist on the patio door to let her know. She's never seen another 
squirrel at the dish and has no squirrel damage problems in her garden.
--
    Norman Soley, Specialist, Professional Software Services, ITC District
    Digital Equipment of Canada                   soley@trooa.enet.dec.com
    Opinions expressed are mine alone  and do not reflect those of Digital 
    Equipment Corporation or my cat Marge.
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: More on slugs/snails
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:27:21 GMT
Organization: -

In article <1992Jul21.033850.18174@math.ucla.edu>, 
ramirez@julia.math.ucla.edu (Alice Ramirez) writes:

> [ Description of banana slug mating habits deleted. ]
> 
> On a slightly different note, the advice about vinegar melting slugs
> is most heartening.  I am going to try to find a way of adapting this
> to a far more obnoxiously prevalent pest in my own garden...the common
> escargot snail, curse of California gardeners everywhere, but especially
> down here in good old So.Cal.  There is nothing in the world as gross
> as walking outside barefoot after dark and stepping on one of these things.
> The distinct pop, the sensation of something collapsing under the sole of your
> foot followed by the even more revolting sensation of something wet and
> slimy gushing up between your toes.  

I saw a show on PBS once that showed the mating of the escargot snail. 
It was like something from another planet and to think it happens all
the time in my own backyard.  Anyway, like slugs, snails are
hermaphrodites.  At one point in the mating process one snail
punctures the neck of the other with a "love dart" (a bone-like barb).
They weren't sure what role this played in the mating process, but
when it was all over one slithered away with the thing stuck through
its neck.  Apparently it causes no permanent harm.  Next time you step
on a snail look at the slimy gushing mess between your toes and
sometimes you can find the dart.  

Jim
Newsgroups: rec.gardens