HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjs@gvgdsd.GVG.TEK.COM (Peter J. Stonard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: 80A 80B 80C Which filter?
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:22:08 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gvgdsd.gvg.tek.com
Originator: pjs@gvgdsd

I have a couple of questions about colour balance.

Given that I am using common daylight balanced C41 print film,
and wish to take pictures using available electric light,
which blue filter should I use?

The electric lights are a variety of incadescent bulbs and
discharge lights seem in the street. I assume the number 80
filter has A,B,C variations to cater for the various color 
temperatures of different artifical light sources.

As I may have daylight pictures on the same roll I would like
to stick with standard processing and printing, and use the filter(s)
when needed. I realise that if all exposures were under the same 
lighting conditions the printer could correct for the 
yellowish light.

What if I want to combine a long exposure with artifical light,
using the blue filter, and add a flash for freezing motion or
lighting the subject? Is there a yellow gel that compliments the 
blue filter, that can be placed over the flash?

++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++
Peter J. Stonard        +                                /^\  /^\
Grass Valley Group      +                       /^\     /   \/
Grass Valley, CA. 95945 +                     /     \ /    /  
pjs@gvgspd.gvg.tek.com  +     Fish keeper in the Sierra Foothills
++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++=++
If it looks like; sounds like; quacks like; an Opinion. It's mine.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:08:30 GMT

=In article <1992Dec29.122948.26657@eua.ericsson.se> Harald.Brandt@eua.ericsson.se (Harald Brandt) writes:
=>In article <BzzBo5.3r9@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) 
=>writes:
=>> PS When are you getting the 85L to complete you lens inventory :)
=>
=>No, I am not buying that, I am not so fond of 85mm, more so of 105mm, but 
=>while we are dreaming, I list the toys I have been looking at: 24mm/L TS 
=>or/and 45 mm TS, 100/2.0 USM, 100/2.8 Macro, 50mm/2.5 macro, Extender X2.  
=>And I am actually planning to buy the extension ring EF25 (the store in UK 
=>(York Cameras) could not get hold of it, nor could they get the lens hood 
=>to the 28-105).  If there were a 35-105/2.8 I would consider buying that, 
=>but the current 28-105 has the nice feature of being very small and light, 
=>so it is perahps the perfect lens when I do not want to carry to much.  
=>Concerning the TiltShift lenses, they do unfortunately not have AF, which 
=>means they cannot serve as a combination of special lens and general 
=>shooting lens. They seem to be made exclusively for prof architectural 
=>people, but their usage could be much greater than that - if only the 
=>price was a few times less!

   I was looking at those TS lens, but at the price of the lens
alone, I can buy a used 4x5 camera.  Since you have to use tripod
and spend 15 minute ajusting the T&S anyway, might as well go
all out and do it in 4x5 for less.

-Anthony
From: jromao@bragg.bio.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Olympus Stylus Recommendations
Date: 25 Dec 92 22:05:54 GMT
Reply-To: jromao@bragg.bio.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue University, Dept. of Biological Sciences


	So, would you Barry Gunn be so kind as to offer us your reccomendation
for the best P&S around (if you don't assume MONEY to be a key factor, of
course the Contax T2 and the Konica Hexar would be the better ones).
From: mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Dumb Photographers
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:47:00 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <4212@eastman.UUCP> barnick@mesa.Kodak.COM (William M Barnick x73638) writes:
>
> Now I have to top that one ... Once when I was walking through downtown
> Vail, CO late at night I saw a man taking a picture of his family posed
> in front of the downtown shops (tourist traps).  He had the flash set on
> the camera to be a bounce flash.  So having nothing better to do, I
> walked up to him and told him that he had better flip down the flash because
> there is nothing to bounce off of except black sky.  [. . .]

BAAAAAAAD move.  In a situation such as this, it's best to just remember
the Prime Directive and keep walking.

Mike

-- 
Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             mikec@spider.co.uk
Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sch@unx.sas.com (Steve Holzworth)
Subject: Re: Backpacking gear for photofilos
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:13:21 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.

micki@netcom.com (Michelle Stone) writes:

stuff deleted

>Yes.  Lowe makes some fine stuff if you are out for a day.  I go
>out for as much as two weeks.  I carry a tent, bag, cooking gear, stove, water
>purification equipment, clothing for all weather conditions.......
>Two camera bodies, two tripods, 3 lenses, extension tubes....
>You get the picture.  I hate walking along, finding a great shot
>and blowing 20 minutes unpacking and packing it all up again.

I use a Lowe-Pro Mini-Magnum, lashed onto my pack (a North face BackMagic).
The Mini holds a body with a (long) lense mounted, plus two additional
lenses (body, whatever) adjacent to that, and has a zippered pocket on the 
front.  The case has a normal, wide strap, but also has nylon webbing sewn 
onto the back, so that the case can be mounted on a belt. I use this with
some climbing webbing to attach it to my pack frame. It's outside the pack,
so nothing has to be unpacked to get at the gear. Lash a tripod to the side
of the pack (or frame).

>Mayby Lowe could design something to mate with their real back
>packing gear so that is accessable and carries well.

>Michelle

>-- 
>micki@netcom.com

>By the way.  I find myself to be a recent addition to the 
>unemployment statistic.  I am a software manager.  If  you know
>of an opportunity, please let me know!

--
Steve Holzworth
sch@unx.sas.com                         "Do not attribute to poor spelling
x6872                                    That which is actually poor typing..."
SAS Institute - Open Systems R & D                      - me
Cary, N.C.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: smangan@src.honeywell.com (Stefanos Manganaris)
Subject: Kodachrome & Processing by Kodak?
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:34:42 GMT


Hi -- I've read in several articles about people having their Kodachrome
processed by Kodak labs (not, Kodalux, Qualex, etc.).  In my inquiries,
Kodak says they don't do any processing on their own any more, and they
point to Kodalux instead.  What's the deal here?

Could someone please post how I can have Kodachrome processed by Kodak (if
at all possible)?

Thank you,

Stef.
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 29 Dec 1992 21:16:24 EST
From: Spartacus/CUNY LC NY <LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photo CD

-==--==--==--==--==--==--==--<*>--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-
          I wish everyone all the best in the new year.
        You all have a jammin' New Years Eve hear?  Peace
-==--==--==--==--==--==--==--<*>--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-

Hey! No more Bush in 22 days!  :-) :-)

-------
                                                       .  .  .  .   .  . . .
------------------------------+ All The Best in '93,. .  .  . .  *  . . .   .
Reply To:                     |                       . . .  .  /o . . .  . .
     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    | Edward Galarza,          .  .  / o   .   .
     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      | Brooklyn College Of The     . /o  o    .   .
     IRC: Spartacus           | City University Of New York  /o  o o    .  .
------------------------------+ "Que viva el OS/2!"   __________| |__________
                                                      #######################
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: panos@burton.cs.colorado.edu (Panos Tsirigotis)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:45:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.032603.25071@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>>>1.2) Red Eye reduction?  You shouldn't need it for a bounce unit.  I'd like
>>>to hear how useful it really is.
>
>>You don't need it in bounce mode.  However, the head does fold down far enough
>>to allow non-bounce usage too.  (Oh, yeah! :-)
>
>Silly boy! :-)
>I wanted to know how useful it was even for direct flash!  The head,
>being far off the lens axis, should rarely produce red eye.  But, I'm
>still open to reports on its effectiveness (for people who do find that
>they get a lot of red eye in their shots, even with an SB-24, say).
>

Producing red-eye if not just a function of the flash head distance
from the lens axis; it also depends on the lens focal length.
I have managed to produce red-eye with my 100-300mm lens at 100mm
(or maybe 135) using a 430EZ so red-eye reduction on the flash
may come useful sometimes.

Panos


-- 
Panos Tsirigotis, CS grad                        
Pmail: Computer Science Dept., U. of Colorado @ Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309-0430
Email: panos@cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Tamron 90/2.5 macro (was Re: Longish macro lens for EOS. (was Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?))
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<PD.92Dec30014256@horus.sics.se> <1992Dec30.151756.24872@PacBell.COM>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:26:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.151756.24872@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN) writes:

>Is your recommendation for the Tamron 90mm macro a personal preference 
>or is it substantiated by "lab" testing and or "field" testing by a 
>non-partistan group?

It is based on a test by the magazine "Aktuell Fotografi". The Tamron
90/2.5 macro and the Zeiss PLanar T* 85/1.4 got the highest ratings in
a test of 34 short telephoto lenses from 85mm to 135mm. All the major
brands were represented.

>To say the Tamron is the *best* is really saying 
>too much, IMHO. IF you mean the best in terms of cost, as in cheaper, 
>then your choice is well taken. IMHO, when it comes to lenses or 
>camera equipment in general, I attempt to opt for quality.

The test I'm referring to tested only optical quality.
Price/performance considerations are left to the reader.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
From: ohtonen@tele.nokia.fi (Pasi Ohtonen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Leica projectors
Date: 31 Dec 92 11:07:43 GMT
Distribution: rec.photo
Organization: /user1/u1/ohtonen/.organization

I sold my previous projector yesterday and now I'm 
looking for a replacement. I have a brochure of Leica's projectors
on my desk and I started to wonder, which of the models P 155/P 255
to choose (if Leica at all). 
Requirements are:
 silent (both cooling fan and slide change noise), mechanically robust
 (it's going to be used only at home, though), good optical perfomance,
 capability for CS-magazine format (I have few thousands of slides in 
 CS-frames) and autofocus.
Where I whant to here opinions/judging rules? Money is limiting factor!
 150 W or 250 W lamp?
 Hektor 85mm 2.8 or Colorplan 90mm 2.8 lens? 
 Is Leica silent? 
 Does earlier Leica models support CS-format (if looking for used one).
 Other manufacturers? 
 
Post or email is welcome. And Happy New Year.

-Pasi O

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pasi Ohtonen                           Telenokia / Nokia Telecommunications
 Internet: ohtonen@tele.nokia.fi        phone: +358-0-5116463
From: barryg@hplsla.hp.com (Barry Gunn)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:19:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Is EOS 28-105 USM much better than 35-105 USM lens?
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

>Also, you might want to add:
>
>     - slightly wider angle, of course
>     - metal lensmount
>     - distance scales and IR correction marks
>     - nonrotating front element (great for polarizers and mirrorscopes!)
>     - full-time manual focusing (i.e. you can focus manually in AF mode)
>     - closer focusing (1.6 ft vs. 2.8 ft)
>
According to Canon literature, the close focus distance is 2.6 ft.
     _
    [o] Barry Gunn x2281
    /|\ barryg@lsid.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jbg@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Jeff Gehlhaar)
Subject: Constucting Small Darkrooms
Summary: Small Darkrooms
Keywords: darkroom
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:36:54 GMT

I need recommendations on how to construct a very small, easily collapsed
darkroom. I have a fairly sizable bathroom, and all of the trays, enlarger
etc that I need. What I don't have is a table or rinse area that I can place
the trays on. Does anybody manufacture small, collapsable tables for this
purpose. Also, I'm told nothing like this exists, but it would be handy
to have a florescent tube shaped safe-light.

Any hints, recommendations about this matter, or setting up a darkroom for
the first time will be greatly appreciated.

Jeff Gehlhaar
Qualcomm Inc.
San Diego, CA USA
jbg@qualcomm.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Which lenses report focusing distance electronically?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 11:52:18 GMT

auyeung@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Tak [UlTech] AuYeung) writes:
: In article <1992Dec28.205950.16887@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@bellcore.com (Jason Chen) writes:
: >
: >Huh? If not how does TTL flash work?
: >
: >Jason Chen
: 
: I suspect some TTL mechanisms read from the film-plane to "see" the
: actual light reflected (otherwise, bounced light would be quite
: difficult to compute).

This is called OTF (Off the Film) metering.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: PXY@ECLX.PSU.EDU (Pen-Li Yen)
Subject: For Sale: Cheap EOS 650 w/two Macro lenses, $495
Organization: Penn State Engineering Computer Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 19:58:47 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24


Canon Eos 650 body:
	shutter speed: 30sec to 1/2000 sec
	ASA: 6-6400  or DX
	program, automatic mode, light conpensation
	depth of field preview button
	built-in motor drive, single or continuous shot

	w/strap, mint condition, w/maunal

Canon 70-210 EF Macro F:4 lens            mint condition
Canon 50 EF Macro F:2.5 lens   
	new in box, w/Canon waranty card, manuals

body and zoom lens 8 months old,
50mm Macro lens have been purchaised for 2 months, never use, new model


Sell all of above for $495

before you consider this camera, please check the price listed in Shutterbug
or popular photography magazines.

Phoenix flash for Canon Eos:
Model# ZIF 105C

	Zoom (wide 28mm, 35mm, std 50mm, tele 85mm) w/ diffusion screen
	vertical 90 degree and horizontal 360 degree
	TTL w/infrared autofocus
	Auto off
	color temperature: 5600 K
	hi and lo switch
	dedicate to Canon EOS series

Sell for $80  in mint condition, w/original box

Buyers pay shipping

Yuesea
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: What is IMHO?
From: wangqi@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:25:56 -0700
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University
From: jpb@calmasd.Prime.COM (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Velvia Reciprocity Info?
Date: 24 Dec 92 03:04:39 GMT
Organization: Computervision, San Diego, CA

In article <12430086@hpmwnpd2.sr.hp.com> allana@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Allan Armstrong) writes:
<Does anyone have information about the reciprocity failure of Fujichrome
<Velvia? I've been able to look up the behavior of Fujichrome 100 and 50

	This is from tests made at Brooks Institute's Color Technology
Department as reported by Petersen's Photographic:

Meter reading		Recommended exposure time
-------------           -------------------------
1.0"			same
2.0"			same
4.0"			4.9"
5.0"			6.5"
8.0"			12"
10"			16"
12"			19"
16"			28"
20"			39"
25"			49"
32"			1'6"
40"			1'28"
64"			2'38"
1'21"			3'31"
1'42"			4'42"


	The same issue (May 1991) also lists reciprocity corrections for
a bunch of Ektachromes, Kodachromes, Fujichromes, VPH, VPS, T-Max 100,
Fujicolor Reala, a Konica and an Agfachrome.  Kodachrome 64 has to be
a record holder: if the meter reads 1'42" the recommended exposure time
is thirty five minutes (!)

	Jan Bielawski
	Computervision, San Diego
	jpb@calmasd.prime.com

From: allana@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Allan Armstrong)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:31:30 GMT
Subject: Velvia Reciprocity Info?
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo

Does anyone have information about the reciprocity failure of Fujichrome
Velvia? I've been able to look up the behavior of Fujichrome 100 and 50
and for Kodachrome 25 and 64, but can't find it for Velvia. From memory,
Fujichrome 50 and 100 require +1/2 stop and +5R for 10-100 seconds and
exposures over 100 seconds are "not recommended" whatever that means. I
didn't memorize the Kodachrome information because I don't use it as
often.

Allan
From: peterd@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Peter Davidoff)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:17:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Swelling of wet paper
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Greeley, CO
Newsgroups: rec.photo

Swelling
^^^^^^^^    

The swelling of the *gel* increase the light diffusion, and when
the paper dries (gel dries) and condenses, the exposed bromiedes
condense -- we get *dry down*.

For some of the older processes, especially bromoil, we want as
much swelling as we can.  The process swells the gelatin, than
tans (hardens) it.  With this bas-releif inked, we've the makings
of a matrix for dye-transfer (albeit, an 19th century version).

Collotype also makes use of this emulsion swelling however the
base material is glass (a bit more dimensionally stable, eh? :)  

I've noticed that different papers have considerably different
swelling and dry-down.  The arista classic I use for Carbro has
significant swelling and significant drydown, on the order of 20-25% !

Even my Palladiums and VanDykes show swelling and dry down.  Since
the coating is quite thin and not a gel, I assume it is the paper
swelling I must account for in the exposures.

Peter
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Prints from Slides
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 09:45:47 GMT

bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman) writes:
: 
: 3.  Direct printing (color reversal):
:     In this process a paper that prints from positive originals will be used.
:     The process is commonly called "R3000" or "R3".  No intervening negative.  
:     Sharpness will be maximum.  Contrast may suffer - the pictures may become 
:     too contrasty with shadow areas going all black and highlights too bright.
:     If the original slide is of relatively low contrast then this system will 
:     work well.  Pictures shot in direct sunlight will probably not be 
:     reproduced well because of the contrast problem.  Both Kodak and Fuji make 
:     papers which can be used for this process.  Cost will be around $15-$20.  
:     Any city of any size should have one or more labs which will make this 
:     type of print for you.  Look in the Yellow Pages.  I've not used this 
:     technique.

If you use this to make prints yourself, I recommend the Fuji paper. The
color masking on the paper is a lot closer than Kodak's. It requires much
less, in the way of a filter pack - very little, if I recall correctly.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: nowacki@porsche.net.com ( Michael Nowacki I.T. Database Contractor)
Subject: Developing Tech Pan; hints?
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:17:16 GMT

My objective is to produce negatives with finer grain than the ASA 100
films I have learned to work with: FP4 and T-MAX.

Browsing through a Kodak publication, it looked to me that Tech Pan has the
potential for the finest grain.

I found myself out of film when preparing for a shoot last weekend, so I 
bought 2 rolls of TP and exposed 1 at ASA 25 as advised for pictorial
applications.

The seller made a point about TP being originally intended for microfilm
use, and that it has very high contrast characteristics. Beyond this, it
appears that my (limited) experience in processing will be adequate for TP
using Technidol and following intructions for temp and timing.

What I want is to see if I can approach the look of medium format with
my 35mm equipment.

Any of you grizzled veterans have basic advice? Dilution formulae for grain
enhancement? Other emulsions? Is this naive?
From: lds@ccrl.nj.nec.com (Duan-Shin Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:47:07 GMT
Organization: C&C Research Labs, NEC USA, Princeton, N.J.

>In article <1992Dec24.205338.11007@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
>acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin
> Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>>In <1992Dec23.194028.18483@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> I wrote:
>>3.3) Screens?
>>What you want is a *real* focusing screen with a split prism or
>>microprism focusing aid.  Can a camera really be "pro" or even
>>"semi-pro" without decent screens?
 
>   Why do you want a split or microprism screen?  First off, with
>AF, you don't need focusing aid.  Second, if you ever use a fast
>lens, you'll know that split screen or microprism is useless.  A fast
>lens has such small DOF that unless you are lucky, there won't be
>enough feature for the split screen to split or microprism to merge
>(for example, a tight head shot with a 1.2 lens that has a DOF of about
>1/4", where are you going to find vertical feature on someone's face
>to split the split screen?  If you focus on say the person's arm to
>use the split screen, her face won't be in focus anymore.)  One of the
>few things that I like about AF cameras (obviousely, I don't use one)
>is that they all seems to have bright plain focusing screen.  I
>absolutely hate it whenever someone hand me their camera with that
>pin hole zoom and all you see is that black blob in the middle of the
>focusing screen.
 
>-Anthony

Besides the above reason, split screen or microprism are not useful
for closeup photography, because most likely the viewfinder is
so dark that it is impossible to focuse with these screens.
Also it is quite painful to focus a moving subject with a split
screen.  It is hard to keep track of the alignment of features
when the subject is moving.  Also, because the split screen uses
plain glass in the central split area, photographers can easily
be fooled into thinking that the subject is in focus, while it's not.


-- 
Duan-Shin Lee
C & C Research Lab, NEC USA
Tel:(609)951-2456
lds@ccrl.nj.nec.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: markt@cup.hp.com (Mark Thompson)
Subject: Re: Muslin backgrounds
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:08:44 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

For that matter what type of muslin is used to get the wide backgrounds?

Mark
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dipto@umbc4.umbc.edu (Dipto Chakravarty)
Subject: Re: The "perfect" automated 35mm camera? (was: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?)
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 14:06:03 GMT


can we stop this n90 and eos10 bashing now ?? thx in advance!