HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wjh@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (william.j.hery)
Subject: Re: Kodak Slide Stack Loader: good?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:55:34 GMT

>Kodak is offering an acessory stack loader for their Ektagraphic projectors.
>Does this gadget work well?
>Does it work with the Carousel projectors as well?

I've had a Kodak EC stack loader for a Carousel projector for about 10-12
years. Even from the start, virtually every stack of 36 slides I put 
through it jams on at least one slide (most slides are Kodak processed by
Kodak/Kodalux). I'm not sure if mine is just defective, whether they are
all like that, or if they have improved the design since then. I don't
use the loader for shows, but it is handy for personal previewing of slides.

I would have preferred a slide cube (like the old Bell and Howells) way
of storing/showing slides, but at the time, only Bell and Howell made
anything like that, and the optics on it were not very good. Dows anyone
know of anything like that available now for a projector with good optics?

Bill Hery
AT&T Bell Labs
201-386-2362
hery@att.COM
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Fuji Slide Film or Pushing Kodachrome
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:27:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.205958.29549@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com>, kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden) writes:
> I've been pretty happy with Kodachrome 25 and 64 for quite a while.  However I
> want to shoot some faster slide film and I don't like Ektachrome (spelling?)
> and also disliked the results I have gotten with Kodachrome 200.
> 
> I would be willing to try Fuji slide film, but I know some of Fuji's films have
> "better than real life" colors.  So what I would like to know is which Fuji
> slide films offer more realistic colors and are they available in ISO 200 or
> 400?
> 
> The other thing that I might want to try is exposing Kodachrome 64 at a higher
> speed and then getting it push (or is it pull) processed.  Has anyone tried
> this combination?
> 

There is no ISO 200 Fujichrome, but Fujichrome 100 pushes very well to 200.
Some prefer it to K200. Personally I really like K200 - I guess it is a
matter of personal preference. K64 doesn't push very well. I'd use Fuji100
over pushed K64. You might try the new Ektachrome 400X. It is supposed to
be MUCH better than the old Ektachrome (which was real bad) or Fuji 400. It
is a "pro" film only and as such is a bit expensive (ca. $9 36 exp, discount).

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: klee@wsl.dec.com (Ken Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 1 day photo trips from San Jose, CA
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:15:41 GMT
Reply-To: klee@wsl.dec.com
Organization: DEC Western Software Laboratory


|> I will be visiting the Bay area in mid Sept., and have Sat. free.  I
|> would like to spend the day on nature photography, and would like
|> suggestions or comments on where I can go for this.  I plan to get up
|> *early* Sat. morning so that I drive in the dark and am on location at
|> sunrise.  It may be a long time before I have such an opportunity again.
|>  
|> I have identified two potential locations to visit.  The first is to
|> go north along the coast to Muir Woods and Point Reyes and whatever else is
|> time permiting.  I have heard that Point Reyes is not as crowded as some
|> other areas (?) and offers good natural scenes.
|>  
|> The second idea is Yosemite.  Of course, this entails a 4 hour predawn
|> drive.  I must return to San Jose Sat night.  Is this enough time, or should
|> I save Yosemite for sometime when I have a whole weekend or more?  Also,
|> does the crowd situation permit serious photo taking.  (I don't mind hiking,
|> but time is an issue.)  It is probably not worth 8 hours of driving just to
|> say I have seen it and to take a few casual snapshots.

Your 1 day limit is a problem.  The best times to photograph Yosemite
are dawn and late afternoon until twilight.  You sound like you're
going to have to commute then, thus missing them.

Closer than Muir Woods, but just as scenic is Big Basin, less than an
hour south of San Jose.  Take the hike out to the waterfalls (about 12
miles round trip).  The waterfalls are beautiful, but one of my favorite
forest photography locations is the canyon just south of them.

For beaches, Ano Nuevo and Pt. Lobos are closer and just as interesting
as Pt. Reyes.  Ano Nuevo is home of the giant elephant seals, as well
as other fun animals.  Pt. Lobos has sea lions, sea otters, and a wider
variety of interesting coastal trees.

-- 
Ken Lee
DEC Western Software Laboratory, Palo Alto, Calif.
Internet: klee@wsl.dec.com
uucp: uunet!decwrl!klee
From: cheu@venus.its.uci.edu (Kelvin Cheu)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photograping Whales [8008s autofocus problem]
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:03:59 GMT
Reply-To: cheu@venus.its.uci.edu (Kelvin Cheu)
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <PHILG.92Sep1181633@zug.ai.mit.edu>, philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Sep1.172313.23153@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
|> 
|>    | Nikon autofocus is basically decorative.
|> 
|> 		   -Philip Greenspun
|> 
|>    This comment is just MADE for flames! Big, orange ones!
|> 
|> Hold a Minolta 7xi in your hands for two minutes and pan it around a
|> camera shop or other cluttered space.  Then tell me that our Nikons
|> have autofocus.  What they really have is manual focus whereby you put
|> the sensor on top of what you want sharp, push the shutter release
|> halfway, then recompose.  Since all the lenses I use are f/2.8 or
|> faster, I find that this just gets in the way and it is easier to user
|> the older style manual focus (turn the ring).
|> 
|> What Minolta has is true autofocus.  The camera analyzes the scene,
|> taking into account data from multiple sensors, and always (in my
|> limited experience) picks some sensible collection of things to make
|> sharp.
|> 
|> Maybe the new Nikon N90 we heard about has something comparable.
|> Anyway, it is a safe bet that ten years from now people won't
|> recognize cameras with a little sensor area smack in the middle of the
|> frame and no other intelligence as "autofocus".
|> 
|> Philip Greenspun
|> MIT
|> 
|> P.S.  The Nikon press release actually shows how poor their
|> understanding of systems engineering is (if the fact that the old
|> SB-24 won't work fully with the new 6006 wasn't enough evidence).  It
|> is only now that they figured out that the camera would eventually
|> want to know what distance the lens was focussed at.  Nikon saved
|> adding a $0.50 pin to all the lenses they sold these last few years,
|> but people like us will have to toss $10,000 of lenses if we want to
|> take advantage of their latest technology.  If we all designed
|> software with this degree of shortsightedness...  we'd be really rich!
|> (MS DOS, MacOS, etc.)

Hey! I do not agree with you. Pick up a 8008s, set the focusing mode to
C, press the shuttle release half way, pan around the camera shop and
see what happen !

Why are most of the pros use Nikon and some sports photographers use
Canon ? The choice of those people who make their living out of photography
speak for itself. Same thing apply to why so many universities hire MIT 
graduate as faculties.


Kelvin
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: KODALUX Photo CD Imaging Services price list
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:50:10 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

rivieres@parc.xerox.com (Jim des Rivieres) writes:

>[Note that making prints from Photo CDs is not a service that Kodalux/Qualex
>offers.  Best to hang on to those slides and negatives even after they're
>safely on Photo CD.]

Kodak is offering a "thermal imaging printer" as part of their workstation.
I stopped by my pro shop yesterday and they'd just gotten in their Photo-CD
dealer kit from Kodak.  The kit includes an 8X10 print from the demo disk.
This print looks like a very high quality dye sublimation print.  Pixels
were not visible until I used a 12X loupe.  Even then, they are very small.
The diagonals are very well de-jagged.   I could not have determined it was 
was not a photo print without the loupe.  If Kodalux is not offering 
printing services, it is not because they can't.

My photo guy said he has been told by Kodak to expect the price of the 
"workstations" to decline rapidly from their present $100k.  He expects
to buy one when they hit $60k or so.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: SAMMY'S in LA
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:55:34 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
: URRGENT, does any one have the address and phone number for
: SAMMY'S Camera in LA??

This was an item on the net after Samy's was burned to the ground during
the LA riots, so I might as well post this as a news update ...

Samy's has a full page ad in the issue of Photo District News I received
today.  It features a big red fire extinguisher, and a little note at
the bottom: "And we thank our loyal clientele and suppliers for their
patience and continued support during our relocation."

The new address and phone number are:

Samy's Camera
263 South La Brea
Los Angeles CA 90036
(213) 938-2420

- Jay Ts
From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: What's the standard 4x5 film-holder depth?
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:36:53 GMT
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
In-reply-to: dan@netcom.com's message of 25 Aug 92 08:33:56 GMT


In article <bgan9=g.dan@netcom.com> dan@netcom.com (Dan Liddell) writes:

   Could be that 35 mm film is thinner than 4x5. 

My subjective experience based on loading hundreds of 4x5 film holders
is that 4x5 film is indeed quite a bit thicker than 35mm.  It is
pretty tough to bend the stuff whereas 35mm film just kind of flops
around.

Philip Greenspun
MIT Department of EE
From: bbarton@Ingres.COM (Brian Barton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Need film recommendation for baby's birth
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:03:18 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Aug28.144719.12998@deshaw>, siegela@deshaw.com (Andrew  writes...
>My wife will be giving birth to our first child in November, and of
>course I will be there taking pictures (and perhaps assisting my wife
>as well :-).

Yikes!  If I was a woman (and I'm not) I wouldn't want anyone "shooting" me
during giving birth.  No thank you. :)

> 
>I'm trying to decide what kind of film to use to record this occasion.
>I'll want prints, so it's going to be print film.  The lighting in the
>room will be bright fluorescent ambient light and (probably) halogen
>examination lights.  I'm pretty sure that there are no tungsten lights
>in the room.  I won't be using flash.

Use any print film you want as long as it's Fujicolor 400.  It's fantastic.
Also, don't worry about the light until _after_ the baby's born.  Set your
"in camera" meter to 400 ASA and shoot the whole thing on "Autoexposure."

Once you measure the light (ideally before you go into the hospital or
possibly, after), you can determine whether you should "push" or "pull" your 
film to get the results you need.

Good luck.

Brian

> 
>My priorities in picking the film are sufficient speed, lack of
>graininess, and correct color balance, in that order.  I was thinking
>perhaps of a Kodacolor 400 film, but I'm concerned that it won't be
>fast enough.  I'm also slightly concerned that the color balance will
>be off if I use daylight film.
> 

_Don't_ worry about color balance at all.  Color-correction for neg. film is
easy as pie for the lab and it'll take care of any ghoulish green casts from
the flourescents and the like.

>Can anyone recommend appropriate film and filters?  Thanks.
> 
See above

>-- 
>Andrew Siegel			D. E. Shaw & Co., New York, NY
>abs@deshaw.com			(212)478-0231
From: hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photograping Whales [8008s autofocus problem]
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:31:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <PHILG.92Sep1181633@zug.ai.mit.edu> philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu writes:
>
>What Minolta has is true autofocus.  The camera analyzes the scene,
>taking into account data from multiple sensors, and always (in my
>limited experience) picks some sensible collection of things to make
>sharp.
>
   Gee, who appointed you net.keeper of photographic knowledge?

   Assuming what works best for you is also best for everyone else, is
not just wrong, it's insulting and arrogant.  There's many ways of doing
autofocus for one big reason - we all work differently and therefore
have different requirements for AF systems in our cameras.  

   I don't want my camera deciding what will be at the middle of the
depth of field.  If for example I'm shooting a face, I want the eyes
the sharpest.  When I'm photographing a landscape with distinct objects
in the foreground and background, sometimes I want the foreground in
focus, sometimes I want the background in focus, and on occasion, I want
both in focus.  Based upon how you describe Minolta's system, I wouldn't
be deciding what's in the middle of the depth of field, the camera
would.

   If you're happy with the camera making this critical decision, then
Minolta is the best system for you.  However, don't you dare assume to
know what I want in an AF system.

Harry Bloomberg
hpb@vms.cis.pitt.edu
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Infrared Photography
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:53:12 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics

bill coderre writes:

> honna@cs.concordia.ca (SEGEL honna) writes:
> |If memory serves me right, the 87 is a filter which passes only a very
> |narrow portion of the Em spectrum *in the ultraviolet region*...wroight?

The 87 starts transmitting around 750nm and improves to 88.5% at 1100nm.


> Kodak High Speed Infrared Film (number 4143 in sheet film form) is
> ... sensitive to wavelengths between 400 and 900 nanometers ...

We use it routinely at 1054nm.


> 87 and 87C filters appear "black" to the naked eye. I do not have
> spectral curves for them ...

The 87C starts transmitting at about 800nm and improves to 93% at 1100nm.


> ... but Kodak does note that most all camera
> optics filter out wavelengths shorter than 350 nm.

Don't forget the Nikon and Hasselblad UV lenses that work down to 220nm.


eugene kowaluk
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
From: rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk (Richard Tomlinson)
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:27:14 GMT

In article <l9okqpINNnc6@almaak.usc.edu> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>I was extremely enthusiastic about the basic idea of Photo CD when I
>first heard of it.  I'm going to strictly avoid it, however, given the
>way Kodak seems to be going about it.
>
>Kodak wants to tie up the file formats under lock and key.  You can't
>write a program to open their files.  You can't even write a program
>which generates their files.  Don't expect to ever see interfaces
>between Photo CD and pbm or TeX.  If you write a neat program which
>does XXX to a file in Kodak format, you can't give that program to
>anyone else.
>
>The only people who can read/write the Photo CD files are commercial
>vendors who pay Kodak royalties.
>

I agree with the sentiments, but isn't Kodak going for a totally different
market? They are aiming at ordinary consumers who take snapshots and not PC
users who want to use the images for DTP or whatever.

Personally, I can't see the attraction of having pictures on the telly.

Richard.
-- 
Richard Tomlinson, EDS Scicon, Wavendon Tower, Milton Keynes, UK MK17 8LX
rpt@edscom.demon.co.uk   Tel:  +44 908 284539          Amateur radio: G4TGJ
All opinions expressed are mine, and are not necessarily those of my employer.
From: bercov@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (John Bercovitz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: portrait lenses: 35mm-Format.
Date: 2 Sep 1992 19:56:24 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.243.192.10
Keywords: 35mm Nikon Portrait

In article <lakhindr.715366411@bowmore.NSD.3Com.COM> lakhindr@ESD.3Com.COM
(Lakhinder Walia) writes:

>1. What is generally the range of a portrait lens' focal length..?
>   I know 85mm lens is quite suitable for this. How about 105mm or
>   135 mm.? Of course these lenses will work very well for a studio,
>   I think, but going towards 135mm perhaps forces the subject to be
>   too far..! What is your experience in this please..? Would you like
>   to use 85mm/105mm/135mm..?

I guess it partly depends on what you mean by portrait.  I like to take
fairly tight head shots.  For me, the 85mm fl results in something a little
too "intimate" in the way of a portrait.  The 100mm is just right and the
longer lenses result in photos which are too removed or distant in the
feeling they give.  Maybe it all has to do with personal "bubble space".
So if I were you, I'd stick with that 4 inch lens.  Now that's for ordinary
size prints viewed at ordinary distances.  If you blow up the photos to
8x10 and view them at ordinary hand-held distances rather than hanging
them on the wall and viewing from a greater distance, the 85mm can work
well.  All of this is "in my humble opinion" of course; there are some
real artists in this group who could answer your question far better.

John Bercovitz     (JHBercovitz@lbl.gov)
From: axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photo CD and Cropping
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:47:33 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY

In article <1992Aug28.112439.3727@linus.mitre.org>, mgb@frieda.mitre.org (Michael Butler) writes:
>
>I wonder if photo CD images will be cropped to television aspect
>ratios.  If so, what will be done with vertical compositions?  

Sure would be nice if TVs rotated in place for vertical shots :-)

>
>The image file format probably allows for any rectangular image, but
>the viewing devices certainly won't...  Anybody know how this will be
>handled?

Images on the Photo CD are stored according to the aspect ratio of the 
taking film.  In the transfer process, codes are set to flag the data
in terms of orientation, aspect ratio, etc....
What any particular Photo CD player does with this information is the
issue.  The following display options are available on the Mid-line
player (850/860/870):
	1) Normal
		Crop of BASE data horizontals for 4:3 aspect ratio.
		Zoom of BASE/4 data verticals, rotated, with black borders.
	2) Tele
		Crop/Zoom of BASE data horizontals for 2x tele.
		Crop/Zoom of BASE data verticals for 2x tele.
	3) Full
		Quick display of BASE/4 data horizontals centered in the 
			screen with black surround.
		Quick display of BASE/16 data verticals zoomed slightly 
			and centered with black surround.

It's up to the player manufacturers to determine the display options, of 
course; and there are many under development.
I'm anxious to see a player which actually decompresses and utilizes the 
4BASE, 16BASE, etc... data when zooming.


mike
>

-- 
Mike Axman  
CD-Imaging Advanced Development
Eastman Kodak Company
axman@acadia.kodak.com



DISCLAIMER:
Kodak gives me this Net access for free, but they aren't responsible for my postings.
From: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: New Nikon camera!!!
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:05:26 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 3308@tc.cornell.edu, eacj@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Julian Vrieslander) writes:
>In article <13251@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>>Hmm, the N90.  Anyone have any idea when the N90"S" will be out?
>>
>>	:-)Dave
>
>
>Yup.  About 6 months after you see Nikon's $50 rebate offer for the N90.
>-- 

..and about a year before the N100 arrives.
Anyone care to speculate on the size of the instruction book for the SB25?  Will
they have to issue it on CD, since UPS won't ship anything over 50 pounds?

	Dave
From: filippo@felix.ma.utexas.edu (Filippo Cesi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: red slides
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:25:37 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

I recentely came back from a trip, had my slides (Ektachrome 400) developed
and ... disaster... they are completely ruined. There is red everywhere,
in places where you would rather see greens, blues, yellows and all the
other nice colors. You can more or less guess what the picture represents,
but the colors are completely screwed up. Can the tropical climate
(hot and humid) have had such a bad effect on my rolls
or more likely something went
wrong with the developing process?
I have to decide whether to get upset with FOX Photo Studio or not.

Thanks for any hint,

filippo.
From: jao@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (James A. Ollinger)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Zone system with 35mm?
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:27:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix, Sacramento, Ca.

In article <14657@mindlink.bc.ca> John_Maxwell@mindlink.bc.ca (John
Maxwell) writes:
>Just discovered this group, so forgive me if this question is an old
chestnut
>or anything...
>
>Is there a practical way to use the zone system, by which I mean using
varying
>development times in conjunction with exposure calculations with 35mm
film. I'd
>rather not bulk roll 5-exposure rolls. I heard somewhere that you can do
>something by fogging certain frames with a piece of ground glass. Has
anyone
>ever tried this?
 
 
I haven't done it, but I would think it would be more work than you'd be
willing to do.  
 
You might consider buying or bulk-loading long rolls of film and labeling
N-1, N, N+1, etc, and then use the time honored method of keeping track of
your exposures and rewinding the film.  Thus you take three shots, you
wind the film back.  When you put the film in next time, you wind the film
forward to number 5 (skip 4 for insurance) and shoot a couple more frames,
then rewind.  It's hell on those felt light-traps and you can waste film
or double expose very easily.  But it can be done.
 
I prefer using multiple camera bodies, each loaded with a particular kind
of film.  You pick up the body that has the film you want to use.  If you
don't have the bodies, of course, you have to get some.  But having spare
bodies can be a good idea  anyway.
-- 
    London   *   Paris   *   Forience   *   Rome   *   Sacramento
                          KNIGHTS, Inc.
                JAO@SACTOH0.SAC.CA.US, District Knight
      Maidens Rescued  *  Dragons Slain  *  Feasts Devoured
From: accwai@math.uwaterloo.ca (Andy Wai)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: E-3 and E-4 processing
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:18:52 GMT
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo

In article <1992Aug31.054413.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
>[...]
>Since E-4 is now processed in E-6 with a pre-hardener, and E-3 does not
>have a pre-hardener, can I just plug E-3 film into a E-6 line and get away
>with it??

E-3 is a 24 degree process.  There probably won't be anything left
if you run the film through E-6 at 38 degree.

Andy Wai