HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: B&W on a Colour Enlarger
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:19:56 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Aug18.123930.21919@meiko.com> gordon@meiko.com (Gordon Henderson) writes:
>I have been making B&W prints for some time now on variable-contrast paper
>with an enlarger with a filter tray for the contrast gels. The problem is that
>this setup is 120 miles away, and I'd like to do some enlargments this week
>but I can't get to my usual machine for another 2 weeks. However, I've got
>access to a colour enlarger with a dichromat head. Can I use this for B&W
>prints?

Yes, indeed! You'll also have the advantage of continuously variable
contrast. If you're using one of the Ilford multigrade papers, you'll
find that the data sheet enclosed with the paper will give you
CC-equivalents for the appropriate Multigrade contrast filter.
For Kodak variable contrast papers, this information may be found
in the Kodak B&W Darkroom Dataguide.

Steve
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photography in low light?
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:51:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Aug19.215131.25859
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Aug19.124540.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> 
>If the light is so low that the human eye can't see color, i'd say your only
>choice would be a high speed B&W.  THis summer, either Pop. Photo or Petersens
>Photo. had an article that mentioned T-MAX P3200 rated at EI25000 for
>surveillance work.  Try some T-MAX at 6400 or 12500 (and a hand-held meter
>that can handle the low light!).

I remember reading that, and I also remember thinking to myself, "How is it
possible to rate a film so high".  I didn't think the ISO "standard" went
that high?

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: media permanence (was Re: photo-developing, specifically nudes)
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:51:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Aug20.205118.26484
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Aug20.075605.22278@panix.com> tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.213832.25543@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>
>>What kind of process is that, "archivally processed B&W print", and what does
>>it do to help an image retain its ORIGINAL likeness?
>
>This is really getting silly.  Just do a completely ordinary B&W print on
>fiber base paper, process as normal, tone slightly in selenium toner if you
>wish (this is not essential), use fixer remover (hypo-clear or various other
>brand names), and be sure to wash well.  If you use FB paper, and fixer remover,
>the odds are that your B&W prints are already "archivally processed".  It's not
>exactly rocket science!  ORIGINAL likeness?  What are you getting at here?  Am
>I to assume that in 300 years, my portrait work will all suddenly turn into
>fashion layouts?

While hardly being silly (what can I say, I've never done ANY of my own
developing), what I mean't by "ORIGINAL likeness" was "will it degrade any".
With digital media there is virtually no degradation sort of destruction
of the actual media itself.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sttay@athena.mit.edu (Stephen T Tay)
Subject: Re: FORSALE: Nikon FM-2N
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:27:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.040525.931@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Rupin.Dang@dartmouth.edu (Rupin Dang) writes:
|> I would like to sell my last Nikon body (sob, sob!). Its a one-year old chrome
|> FM-2n in 100% good cosmetic condition and about 90% good mechanical condition.
|> It works fine and  has delivered great results but it has to go now to be
|> replaced by a monster-sized Betacam SP camcorder. I'll sacrifice this piece at
|> $185 including shipping.
what do you mean by 90% good mechanical condition?
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: media permanence
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:38:30 GMT
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA


In article <1992Aug20.135047.1490@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>,
jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
|> gsk@khaki.asd.sgi.com (George S. Kong) wrote:

|> > thus, the information can be made as permanent as you like. the permanence
|> > of the physical media only determines how much copying you have to
do. this
|> > is not true of other media. isn't this obvious?
|> 
|> If "you" is the Silicon Graphics Corporation, yes, it is obvious.

I'll make George's disclaimer for him -- his position and opinions are
his own, and don't necessarily represent those of Silicon Graphics, nor 
other people that happen to work there!  :)

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ben_wen@athena.mit.edu (Benson Wen)
Subject: Re: polycarbonate camera bodies
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<1992Aug11.214948.8774@bony1.bony.com>
	<1992Aug12.164443.29081@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Aug18.111915.16586@sys.sweden.dg.com>
	<19AUG92.18689429.0032@vmxa.polymtl.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:54:02 GMT

In article <19AUG92.18689429.0032@vmxa.polymtl.ca> DH02 <DH02@polytec1.polymtl.ca> writes:

   In article <1992Aug18.111915.16586@sys.sweden.dg.com> robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:
   >
   >I think that I was the person. I just thought that I should mention that a
   >Canon EOS-1 is heavier than a Nikon F-4 even though the latter is reputed
   >to contain more metal. Go figure.
   >
   >- Robert
   The facts, from our very own Glen Porter's "AF Camera Feature List":

   *Canon EOS1, body wt.: 30.4 oz (w/o batteries) - uses lithium batteries.
   *Nikon F4S, body wt.: 45.1 oz (w/o batteries) - uses 6 AA batteries.
     (the F4 would be a couple of ounces lighter, and uses 4 AA batteries)

Hmmm...what about the EOS1 with the Booster E1 attached?

Unfortunately, I only have data for it with batteries, from the EOS1
brochure:

Canon EOS1, with Booster E1, body wt.: 52.4 oz (WITH 8AA batteries).

So...it's pretty close.

Who knows what kind of batteries Canon used to get that figure, but
the 7.3 oz difference... well that's not quite the weight of 6AA
batteries, no?  (Well, I guess it depends on what batteries you mean.)

So, it seems, in the field the F4s(with the standard MB-21) and
batteries is a shade heavier than the similarly equipped EOS1 with
Booster E1 and batteries.

And the F4 can change prisms, so who know what happens then?

-Ben
--

|| Benson Wen
|| ben_wen@athena.mit.edu
|| queeph@hing.lcs.mit.edu
From: PNCSPPC@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU (Phil Calvert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: How Do I Minimize Fogging?
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:52:38 GMT

Hello!  I have some old 400 ASA B&W film which I just never got around to
developing.  Well, now I want to process it but I know there will be a good
bit of fog.  What I'd like to know is how can I minimize the fog when
developing this film?  I was planning to use Agfa Rodinal for the developer,
but if something else would be better in this case I'd use it instead.  Any
help would be appreciated.

Phil Calvert
 
<Bitnet: pncsppc@ncsuvax / Internet: pncsppc@ccvax1.cc.ncsu.edu>
From: reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Bogen monopod head recommendations?
Keywords: Bogen monopod head
Date: 12 Aug 92 04:09:57 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug11.214449.18852@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@flash.bellcore.com (Jason Chen) writes:

>I think the 3026 double action ball head w/ quick release should serve
>you well. If fast setup is very important to you, try the 3265 grip action
>ball head.

>I also have a 3055 double action ball head (the big brother of 3026) on
>a tripod. I feel the double action mechanism is faster than the 3-D heads,
>but certainly not as easy to use as 3265.

My brother has lent me his Bogen tripod with a 3265 head.  Personally
I think it is too gimmicky. (this coming from someone who owns a
HP48SX and uses it mainly as an electronic phone book :) It also seems
kind of stiff and jerky to me, but I am probably just not used to
pointing the camera (or binoculars, I'm currently using it mainly to
hold a pair of 10x50 binoculars while I'm stargazing) this way.
However, the fact that the 3265 is so tall is useful for getting under
the tripod while looking up at the sky.

I thought about getting the 3026.  The biggest problem I see with it
is that the quick release plate doesn't seem to match anything else in
the Bogen catalog.  I'm also looking at getting a heavier tripod and
head (probably the 3033 legs with the 3055 head or possibly the 3160
head) and it would be a real bummer to have to use multiple
incompatible quick release plates.

I'll probably drop by B&H tomorrow and look at all the bits and pieces
involved in this.  I've got my brother's tripod for another couple of
months, so I'll probably just pick up the monopod with a head and swap
the heads between the tripod and the monopod and see which I like on
what.

Thanks for all the help.
-- 
Brian Reynolds
reynolds@panix.com
NAR# 54438
IPMS# 30162
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Qualex complaints (was Fuji E-6 labs)
From: dporter@altair.csustan.edu (Darren Porter)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 23:07:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: California State University, Stanislaus

In article <PHILG.92Aug22175415@zug.ai.mit.edu> philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu writes:
>
>Some Qualex observations...
>
>
>2) The Palo Alto E6 line evidently is pretty sloppy.  I gave some E6
>to a Von's in Mammoth Lakes and I assume it went to Palo Alto where
>they couldn't even print the numbers on the slide mounts properly
>(there were two impressions on each slide, both uninked).
>

There is no more Palo Alto lab.  All film sent to Palo Alto is sent to New
Jersey.


-- 
______________________________________________________________________
|Darren T. Porter                        |  internet mail:           | 
|Mathematics Student                     |       dporter@csustan.edu |
|California State University, Stanislaus | 			     |
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: Grainy B&W film?
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:45:07 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Aug14.164047.21429@newshost.unh.edu>, K_LEPA@unhh.unh.edu (Kristen   Lepa) writes:

> Is there a B&W film out there that is inherently grainy?  I know it
> would help if I got a very fast film, but I like to work with slower
> speeds.  When I had access to a darkroom, I just shook it up a lot, 
> and surprise! it came out just perfect!  Now I have to depend on a (ugh)
> lab.  Too bad the only thing I use B&W for is _nudes_...
> 
> Has anybody else noticed that B&Ws developed at labs seem to be a little
> less than acceptable quality?  I always see too much contrast on what I
> want greyer and too little contrast on what I want basically black and white.
> Can I ask them for "custom" setting do you think?

You may want to try some of the east-European films like Orwo and Efke,
especially slightly push-processed.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: media permanence (was Re: photo-developing, specifically nudes)
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:18:08 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Tredyffrin

In article <1992Aug19.155539.17331@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.180346.10845@talon.ucs.orst.edu> monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson) writes:
>>
>>Of course, the fine B&W prints originally being discussed can sit
>>indefinitely, unattended, without need for investment in new equipment,
>>and still be ready for immediate viewing anytime in the future.
>
>Hold it, are you trying to tell me that a B&W PRINT can out live its digital
>counter-part?  I don't think so.

Sure a B&W print will fade eventually.  But what's important is that you
don't need any special equipment to view it.

Digital images can be moved up to newer storage devices as they become
available.  But what happens years from now when your grandchildren  find some
photo CDs up in your attic after you pass on?  Maybe you had copied all of
the images off of the photo CDs to each new generation of digital storage
device as it came along.  Or maybe you didn't?  How are your grandchildren
going to know if they want to try to get the images off the CDs or not.  Who
knows how hard or expensive that might be?  It might be like finding a 78rpm
record or an 8-track tape today?  Few people have equipment to play those
anymore.  Not only will the storage devices become obsolete, but the file
formats on the digital devices will become obsolete too.

I am certain that some day I will get into digital photography, I'm just
waiting for the price to come down.  (I'd like a high resolution slide/film
scanner; a high resolution monitor with 24, 32 or more bits per pixel, on a
50, 100 or more MHz Workstation, Mac or maybe an MS-DOG PC; with Gigabytes
of RAM and Terabytes of disk storage; some sort of high resolution color
(laser?) printer that can make prints up to 20x24 or larger; and I want it
to cost only 2 or 3 thousand for the whole set up).  I'll probably get into
digital photography sooner than my dream system becomes available though.

If some ancestor of mine finds a box full of my Cibachrome prints 700 years
from now, he/she will get to see somewhat faded prints.  But if they find
a Photo CD of mine 700 years from now, they will probably be completely
baffled as to what it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Recommended Slide Film for Portraits
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:03:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

gerry@dvorak.amd.com (Gerard McKee) writes:
: 
: Could somebody recommend a color slide film for portraits that renders
: skintones well.
: 
: How about Fujichrome 100?

That would not be too bad, but definitely try the new Ektachrome 64x.
I find it to be much better for skin tones than Fujichrome.

64x has high color saturation.  Most people like this, but some prefer
portraits to be a little lower in color saturation.  If this is the case
for you, then Ektachrome 100x might be a better choice.

Jay Ts
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: media permanence (was Re: photo-developing, specifically nudes)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 04:58:29 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Aug14.154136.29761@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.215935.28028@cello.hpl.hp.com> jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
>>
>>Jack Champin addresses digital media problems as though the problem
>>were only a materials problem.  (How long will tapes last?)  A much
>>more serious problem is obsolesence.  Ever tried to find someplace
>>that will read an 800 bpi tape, or a Hollerith (IBM) card?  How about
>>an 8 inch floppy disk?  How about punched paper tape?  Don't even
>>think about those little casettes that used to go in Hewlett-Packard
>>2645 terminals.  Going beyond digital, What about music on one of
>>those 3M cartiridges?  Or even an 8-track cartridge.  78 RPM records?
>
>Actually, thats one thing great about digital media. If a new format comes
>out, all you have to do is copy your old stuff to the new format (with NO
>loss in quality, every digital image is just as good as the original, no
>matter how many copies are made from it), and you are all set.

So what?  How many people _do_ this?

Every try to read a 7-track magtape?  I've often wished I could look at my
mother's code, she having been involved in the computer industry Long Ago.
No such luck.  Took me a long time to _find_ a 7-track drive that would connect
to any processor I've got, and then it turned out not to work.  I'm even lucky
in that I collect PDPs, so that I have a fair variety of old iron to try with.

Unfortunately, the lossless quality of digital media in no way addresses the
problem posed in the original example, "Hey, we were just going through a box
of my grandmother's stuff, and we found this PhotoCD....".  I think it actually
makes it worse.  I've seen a _lot_ of prints from extremely old plates/negs -
I had the opportunity to print from a 40 year old negative of my grandfather's
a few days ago, in fact.  I would be extremely surprised if, in 40 years, it
were anything but very difficult to print from PhotoCDs.

-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon	 tls@panix.COM
  "Oh, you have wounded me!  I have very few prejudices, actually.  The
biggest problem is that I am intolerant of fools.  That is why I have
such a low tolerance level for Libertarians."  -- Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: EKTAPRESS..
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:03:06 GMT


In article <1992Aug17.085829.13814@umiami.ir.miami.edu>, hlam@umiami.ir.miami.edu writes:
|> 
|> Thanks to all for feedback on EKTAPRESS GOLD...
|> 
|> I shot a few rolls of EXTAPRESS GOLD (iso 100) and the prints seems to be
|> highly saturated with deep contrast.  If I ever come to a situation where I
|> need high contrast, I would definetely recommmend this film.  Otherwise, I 
|> would stick to other film...

I've never found Ektapress to be contrasty.  I've used it
a lot for sailing trips and have been pleased with the
rendition of skin tones and sea/sky colors.

The printing of most of these was done by Mystic who
I (sigh) can't use any more.  I don't know how they
come out from Kodalux or Minilabs.
-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Xref: sparky rec.photo:14222 misc.wanted:7720
From: bwm@investor.pgh.pa.us (Bruce Miller #307)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.wanted
Subject: Wanted: Leicaflex SL2 Mot
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:07:39 GMT
Reply-To: bwm@investor.pgh.pa.us (Bruce Miller #307)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cookson, Peirce & Co., Pittsburgh, PA


I am interesting in obtaining a Leicaflex SL2 Mot (this is an
SL2 body with the ability to take the Motor-Drive.  I currently
have an SL2 and a few lenses, but would like to add the MD ability.

Please send me e-mail with any info you might have.  I might be 
willing to work a trade with an M5 I have around.

--
Bruce W. Miller		(bwm@investor.pgh.pa.us)
(412) 731-4946 home (preferred)
(412) 471-5320 work
From: mpc@biosys.apldbio.COM (Morgan Conrad)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Need tripod/photo lab recommendations
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:19:07 GMT
Reply-To: mpc@apldbio.com (Morgan Conrad)
Organization: Applied Biosystems Inc, Foster City, CA


jayg@emilio.WPI.EDU (Jay Giurleo) asks:

>Hello... I'm just starting out in photography, and I need some advice. First,
>I would like to get a tripod.  I'd like someting reasonable sturdy, but not
>terribly expensive, either. (College-student budget!) Any recommendations?

  A friend on a tight budget asked me to pick up a tripod for him.
After much looking, I picked out a Velbon for ~$50 US, and he likes
it very much.  He got a "camera" one, not a "camcorder" one - I think
its a model 450 or 550 or something like that.  Its reasonably
compact for backpacking - you may want something larger, depending
on how you plan to use it.

  However, I'd urge you to reconsider your "tight budget".  A good
tripod should last a long long time, and they do not become
obsolete.  (I hope we don't see "autofocus" tripods!).  Money
spent on a good tripod won't be wasted, so stretch your budget
to get the best you can afford.  The other "guideline" is to
get the heaviest one you are willing to carry.  I'm not sure I'd
go quite that far, since I do a lot of tramping, but a flimsy
tripod is never a bargain.

  As for brands, Bogen makes good, moderately priced tripods, and
Gitzo makes great, expensive ones.  Benbo makes interesting looking
tripods, but I don't know much about them, or any other brands.


Morgan Conrad         live so that you 
Applied Biosystems    can stick out your tongue
mpc@apldbio.com       at the insurance
415-570-6667          doctor             archy

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mkuhn@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Martin W Kuhn)
Subject: Re: cine cameras & obsolescence
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:27:50 GMT

In article <92Aug12.223306edt.230@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> enenkel@cs.toronto.edu (Robert Frederick Enenkel) writes:
>I have an Regular-8mm spring-wound cine camera, and in its day it shot
>a lot of film.  Unfortunately I don't know where to get film for it any
>more, and even if I were to use 16mm film (it's the same, isn't it?),
No, Double-8 (regular 8mm) has twice the perforations as 16mm double-perf
film.  I haven't seen Double-8 film in stores for a little while, but if
it's been discontinued, it would have only been in the last couple of years.
  
>I wouldn't know where to get it processed (ie. developed and cut down
>the middle).  
Kodalux still offers both 8mm and 8mm magazine processing.

>
>I'd like to buy a used Super-8mm or 16mm cine camera and projector to
>replace it.  I think film and processing is still available for these
>formats (am I right?).  What I'd like to know is, how long can I expect
>it to remain available?  If Super-8 is on the way out, should I buy 16mm
>in the hope that it will remain available longer?  Thanks for any help.
Super8 popularity has certainly gone down, but I don't think it is really
on its way out;  there will still be Super8 film availible for quite a 
while yet.  As far as I know, Kodak even offers 5 different emultions in
Super8 currently:  Kodachrome 40 (type A),  Ektachrome 160 (type A) ,
Ektachrome 160 (type G), and Plus-X and Tri-X B&W reversal films.  Super 8
is still popular among student cinematographers. 
If you can afford 16mm, that would also be something to consider.  16mm
will probably be around for a very long time.  However , it is a _lot_
more expensive than Super8... 
(BTW, don't get a 16mm *magazine* camera (film comes in a metal cassete
instead of spools)  It will be a lot more trouble (& expensive)
to get film for it.)
  
>P.S.  Please don't suggest I get a video camera.  I *like* film.
So do I... (though video does have its strong points..)
 
                 -- Marty