HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: webdw@cbnews.cb.att.com (bruce.d.woods)
Subject: Re: polycarbonate camera bodies
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:52:10 GMT

In article <22166@venera.isi.edu> finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
>
>	Claiming that metal isn't strong enough is strange considering
>that principal bearing surfaces are still metal in most polycarbonate
>bodied SLRs.  Why?  I wouldn't believe all that you hear.  If you
>really think that polycarbonate bodies allow one to produce a more
>reliable camera ... consider how reliable banged up Leica M3 user
>bodies are ... at 30+ years of age.  The newer body materials are much
>less expensive to produce and result in higher profit margins.  I
>would place my bets there as the reason.

Agree!  Cost reduction/margin enhancement is the only real
reason away from metal bodies.  My three old Canons dating
back to 1969 have been al over the world, dropped, abused,
well-used and still show little signs of wear.  Thwy've also
withstood temps from -48 to +185 deg. F.  Will the plastics
of today stand up as well?  I'd be a little leary of very cold
weather brittleness with the plastics but then maybe they are
almost as good (or better).  

BDW
>--
>Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
>Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Has anyone used Fuji NGH 400 35mm professional film? YES
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:10:50 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

In article <1992Aug11.201812.16252@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, dougb@comm.mot.com (Doug Bank) writes:
> In article <12869@inews.intel.com>, kjarman@sedona.intel.com (K. Jarman) writes:
> 
> |> 	I know 400 is supposed to be more grainy than say 100. But again 
> |> according to the article in Shutter Bug, it was supposed to be such a great 
> |> film that it could handle these enlargements and even bigger ones. Even the 
> |> paper instructions that come with the film says it is suitable for wedding 
> |> and portrait photography.
> 
> I tried the film at a recent wedding.  I had no where near the kind of lighting 
> you had, and I needed the 400 speed.  The color pallete was good - the film 
> does seem to be less contrasty than the normal Fujicolor 400.  However, in 
> my subjective opinion, I thought that the 4x6 prints were a bit grainy under
> bright sunlight.  I haven't had anything blown up - actually I gave the negatives
> away - but I was a little concerned about the grain as well.  I suspected that
> I had left the film out of the refrigerator too long.  It was on a trip out of 
> town, and on occasion, the film had the pleasure of sitting in the car during a
> hot St. Louis afternoon.  How temperature sensitive IS professional film?
> 
NHG and Ektapress are rated for 'cool' storage. 65F from memory, for lomg term.
Examineing NHG under microscope, it seemed equal to better than Konica 100. I
think I also compared it to VPS and wasn't sure. Ektar 25 was clearly finer.

The ability of NHG in mixed 'adverse' lighting is remarkable. Its only draw back
is price. Fugi are offering a free 20x24 enlargment with the purchase of 10
rolls in OZ at the moment.

~Paul
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nuclear Powered ANTI STATIC BRUSHES (was Re: View finder cleaning)
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:00:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) writes:
: kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden) writes:
: >A while ago, I ordered one of those "Static Master" (I think that's the name)
: >brushes from Adorama.  I was suprised to see all the radiation warnings, etc.
: >You can't throw it out.  You have to return the radioactive piece of the
: >brush to the company for recycling.  Don't remove the protective grill,
: >because touching the radioactive material isn't good for you. ...
: 
: Without having any data, I'd imagine that the radiation dose you'll get
: from using a Static Master is absolutely insignificant.

"Absolutely insignificant" ???

: I've never used (or even seen) a Static Master, but I'm just trying to
: dispel some fears about Evil Radiation (tm).  Remember, you get a
: radiation dose from watching TV, climbing a mountain, smoking a
: cigarette, eating a banana, taking a trip to Denver, flying across the
: country, and lots of other things you probably don't think twice about
: (well, ok, you might think twice about the cigarette ;^) ). 

There are different kinds of radiation.  If I understand it right, the
Static Master uses a low-level source of beta radiation (electrons) ...
or is it alpha particles?  Well, either way, large doses of either are
Double Ungood, so to speak.  What you are calling "absolutely insignificant"
may mean that you don't notice anything now, but you become terminally ill
20 years from now if you eat brocolli when the moon is full :-)

After all, things like freon, photographic chemicals and leaded gasoline
used to be considered safe.  Oh yes, cigarettes were thought to be safe, too!

I myself try to stay away from unnatural sources of nuclear radiation, and
most natural ones as well.

: It would be interesting to see some numbers

Yes, not that they would prove anything!

BTW, what kind of radiation does one get from bananas?  Were you serious
about that?

Jay Ts
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Qualex complaints (was Fuji E-6 labs)
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:53:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug21.204226.22220@samba.oit.unc.edu>, rslugg@med.unc.edu (Robert Slugg) writes:
> In the September Shutterbug Bob Shell in the article about Gold+ films has
> a several paragraph bitch session about kodalux service.  I'm still
> getting 5 day turnaround and no scratches or dirt on my slides, and they
> are still mounting my remaining rolls of "processing/unmounted" B&H
> kodachrome.  
> 
Note that Shell's comments were related to Kodalux PRINT processing, not
their slide processing service. He actually commented that their Kodachrome
service had improved since the early days after conversion from Kodak to
Kodalux.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: marke@cirrus.com (Mark Edelman)
Subject: 4x5 field camera recommendations
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:46:06 GMT


for all who have 4x5 field cameras:

i am shopping for a field camera and was hoping some of you 
could help me.

could you give me your impressions of your camera?
could you summarize the movements it is capable of?

what are the things you particularly like about your camera?
what are the features you wish it had?

if there is enough interest, i will generate a "4x5 feature" list ...

thanks,
mark edelman

marke@cirrus.com
h: (510) 226-1396
w: (510) 226-2100 x3578



-- 
Mark Edelman 		email: marke@cirrus.com
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Slightly overexposed FujiChrome 100.
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:59:53 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

SPW103@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
: Okay, small question.  I just shot my first roll of FujiChrome 100.  I usually
: shoot KodaChrome, so I don't really know much about the film.  Anyhow, I just
: realized that I exposed the whole roll with my meter set at 125 ASA

So you *under*exposed it.  By 1/3 stop.

: My instincts tell me it should only make a slightly perceptible
: difference.

My opinion:  Although Fujichrome 100 has good exposure lattitude, it is not
excellent.  My experience with Fuji 100D Professional (and Velvia) is that 
if it is exposed as per its ISO speed, the slides will come out dark, as
compared to Ektachrome and Kodachrome, which is what people are used to.
Underexposure by 1/3 stop will make them even darker.

: Should I bother with asking the processor to push it slightly?

Unless you are severely impoverished, why not pay a few dollars more and
tell them to push it 1/3 stop?  Better safe than sorry?

Jay Ts
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: txn@sirius.larc.nasa.gov (Troung Nguyen)
Subject: Novice question on Elan fill-in flash 
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:16:14 GMT


 I recently purchased an Elan and have shot 4 rolls of print film since.
 Most of the pictures I took were outdoor portraits, and I used 
 fill-in flash extensively.  The results were not very consistent, as 
 the main subjects in the pictures were sometimes either over or 
 under exposed (on the same roll of film).  I used +1/2 to +1 1/2
 stops of "flash exposure compensation" for fill-in depending on 
 background brightness(more for brighter background).  Would 
 someone please give me some advice on how to use fill-in flash 
 more effectively?

 I understand that it was a novice  question, but the camera 
 manual and 4 other books I have are of no help.  
 While on the same subject, what is + or -
 of "flash exposure compensation" relative to ? (i.e. + for 
 longer duration? How much longer?)

 I used the built-in flash if it matters.  Thank you.

 Truong Nguyen
 txn@sirius.larc.nasa.gov
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: polycarbonate camera bodies
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:33:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Aug19.183305.21048
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Aug19.164840.29913@midway.uchicago.edu> ar12@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>*"Canon EOS-1 is heavier than a Nikon F-4 even though the latter is reputed
>* to contain more metal."
>* Robert
> 
>Check your facts. The F4 weighs on the order of at least a pound more than the
>EOS-1.

Nikon F4s weighs ~14ozs more than an EOS-1....

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mcfearin@convex.com (Lee Mcfearin)
Subject: Re: Airshows
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:29:24 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Jay Lorenzana <U40348@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>Dear Experts,
I'm not an Expert, but here goes anyways.

>I just got my pictures (airshow) back and I'm a bit dissapointed.  I
>thought I new what I was doing but...

>Turns out the planes were still underexposed and blurred.  I knew
>I was taking a chance at 1/500 and I thought my panning improved--mistake.
The polarizer could have cut out light from the planes since reflections
from metallic surfaces tend to be polarized.  Your polarizer may have
added to the underexposure.

At 300mph(I know plane speeds vary, but...) a plane moves
300*5120/3600=426 feet/second. At 1/500s, the plane would move
almost 1foot! This translates into the following: if a plane is moving
across from you, any detail on the plane less than a couple of feet in
the deminsion of motion will not be very clear. If the plane is moving
toward, or away from you, the speeds are much less.

>What should I have done?  Would 1/1000 with a meter reading of an
>aircraft on the ground produce better effects?   
I personally would ditch the polarizer and double my shutter speed.
Panning can blur the background; not panning can blur the airplane.
Both can provide much more interesting photos than many still shots.

If you are looking for sharper photos, take them with the planes moving
toward or away from you, use a faster shutter speed, or a shorter focal
length shooting groups of planes keeping each individual plane smaller.  

>Any help would be appreciated,
>-Jay

lee
--
Lee McFearin.                                   #include <std/disclaim.h>
mcfearin@convex.com
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Heat-resistant long-life film
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:01:10 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

hegarty@iis.ethz.ch (Christopher Hegarty) wrote:
> I want to leave a camera in my car so that if I am involved in a car
> accident I can take some photos of the accident scene, which may be
> helpful if any legal problems arise.
> One problem is that inside my car tends to get very hot in
> summer; I'm concerned about film lifetime.  Can anyone tell me 
> how often I might need to replace the film, or recommend film with a
> relatively long lifetime under these conditions?
> I guess colour print film is probably the best for this application,
> but I'm open to other suggestions.

Colour print film probably is the best for this - it has wider latitude
than slide film, and for forensic purposes you probably want to record the
colour of the car that hit you.  But it's the least stable kind of film
there is (I've processed slide, monochrome and colour print film that had
been kept for years, and only the print film had real problems).  You don't
want any colour shifts if you can help it.  And you also don't want to worry
about the camera being stolen.

So how about a disposable loaded with 200 ASA print film, and replace it
every year?  (Practice first - they need to be held steady to get sharp
results, and you'll want numberplates to be readable).

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: EOS-1HS ... NO COMMENT...
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:58:52 GMT

From the latest pro Photographer in Aust.
"... Canon is emphatic it won't apear at Photokina..."
The EOS-1HS is in the 'definate no comment' zone now it seems.

~Paul
From: gordon@meiko.com (Gordon Henderson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: B&W on a Colour Enlarger
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:39:30 GMT
Organization: Meiko Scientific Corp.

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?

(I know I could do it on fixed grade paper with no problems, but I have a
stock of variable-contrast paper, and I'd like to not have to buy
some graded paper if possible)

Thanks in advance.

----
  Gordon Henderson
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rwu@ismdqa.intel.com (Ronnie Wu )
Subject: Zone system
Organization: Intel Corp.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:07:42 GMT


	Hi,   Can any one give a short description of what is 
'zone system' ?  or is that possible ?
	I am looking at this book by Ansel Adams - 'Negative'
(1 of the 3 bookset). I like to know how complicated this 
topic is before I spend $35.00 for it. I guess I could read it
at the book store ;-)

	Thanks in advance !

Ron
rwu@mattec.intel.com
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Flourencent light question
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:31:15 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

>In article <robinson.20@odie.ee.wits.ac.za>, robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za
>(Michael Robinson) wrote:
>> If I am shooting on daylight balanced film is there any filter available for 
>> use under flourescent light?  What other alternatives are there to avoiding 
>> green photos?

You really need different filters for warm white, white, and cool white 
flourescents.  I think it's an 85A for cool white.  If doing colour prints, 
maybe you could just ask the lab to compensate

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I've just been drinking Guinness, so can't think of a decent .sig  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: B/W Duplicating Film
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:07:49 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

In article <l92m9uINNdqq@news.bbn.com>, koolish@BBN.COM (Richard M. Koolish) writes:
> 
> Has anybody played with Kodak Professional B/W Duplicating Film
> SO-339 (formerly 4168). This stuff seems to give a direct positive
> image without reversal processing.  I was given a box and am looking
> for information.

See the Kodak book on copying, M-1 I think. It gives a fair bit on thois film
and data sheets for many BW and colour films.
I could try to dig mine out if need be.
~Paul
From: marshall@marshall.Eng.Sun.COM (Ralph Marshall - Sun BOS SunLabs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: For Sale:  Yashica Mat 124 G TLR camera for sale
Date: 17 Aug 1992 19:32:41 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Billerica, MA. 
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: marshall.east.sun.com
Keywords: medium format

In article <1992Aug17.142622.26899@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> scd@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (steven.c.dittmann) writes:
>For Sale:
>
>Yashica Mat 124G medium format TLR camera for sale.
>80mm F3.5 Yashinon lens, and 1 to 1/500th shutter speed, plus B.
>I uses 120 or 220 roll film.  6cm x 6cm square negative size.
>Built-in light meter that works.  Lens cap and non-original camera strap.
>The camera is scratched up, and has some brassing, but it works well.
>It also includes a set of step-up rings to permit the use
>of 49mm filters.
>
>$125 plus shipping.  No COD.

Without having seen this camera, my impression is that this is pretty
much the standard asking price.  However, when I was at the recent
camera show in Watertown, MA (held in the Armenian Cultural Center) I
saw pretty much the same item with an asking price of $225, and a
number of older TLRs with fewer features (particularly no light meter)
for more than $125.  I was fairly unimpressed by the camera show
(having driven up from Providence, RI in part to see it based on
reports of previous years) I found the complaints from one seller
to the effect that "the people who come to these shows never buy
anything" to be somewhat silly given that the prices on everything
seemed to be so high.

Has anybody else had this same impression, or was this just an
isolated incident with this particular camera? I'm relatively
unfamiliar with used equipment prices, so I'm may be mistaken in
saying that the other prices were high as well.  Other than the fact
that there was a fairly large selection of equipment, there seems to
be no real reason to attend this show - it certainly didn't seem to
offer good deals.

Ralph Marshall
ralph.marshall@east.sun.com

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: accwai@math.uwaterloo.ca (Andy Wai)
Subject: Re: media permanence (was Re: photo-developing, specifically nudes)
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:43:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.213832.25543@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.182734.871@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.155539.17331@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>An archivally processed B&W print ought to be good for a few centuries.
>>That may or may not be true of a Photo-CD. You pays your money and you takes
>>your chances.
>
>What kind of process is that, "archivally processed B&W print",

Sigh...

>and what does
>it do to help an image retain its ORIGINAL likeness?

Speaking of which, since digital images don't have any physical existence,
what is the "ORIGINAL likeness" of, say, a picture from a PhotoCD?

Andy Wai
From: swatko@airbag.enet.dec.com (Mike Swatko)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Medium-fomrat camera with a self-timer?
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:32:28 GMT
Reply-To: swatko@airbag.enet.dec.com (Mike Swatko)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua, NH

--
You can buy a little self timer accessory for about $20.  It screws into
the cable release socket.  It's a mechanical gizmo that you wind up which
should give you up to about a 20 second delay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: sgccpgs@citec.oz.au (Paul Salanitri)
Subject: Nikon FG (? info wanted)
Organization: CITEC
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 05:19:57 GMT

Does anyone know about this camera, I'm thinking of buying a 2nd hand
one (possibly 10 years old)
I must have a really accurate meter.


--

==========================================================================
 Paul Salanitri                               sgccpgs@citec.oz.au
  P.O. Box 12702, Elizabeth Street, Brisbane QLD 4002, AUSTRALIA
   Committee for the Liberation and Intergration of Terrifying 
         Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society
             E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.  
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mkuhn@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Martin W Kuhn)
Subject: Re: questions concerning old cameras
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:39:33 GMT

In article <86553@netnews.upenn.edu> liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang) writes:
>
>  What are the differences between M, X, and Fp synch?

M sync:  for regular flashbulbs; there is a short delay between the time
  the bulb goes off and the shutter opens to give the bulb time to reach
  full brightness.

X sync:  for electronic flash; no delay betw. flash and shutter.

FP sync:  Like M sync, but for focal-plane shutters.  You must use special
  "FP" bulbs that have a longer-lasting light output so the light will
  last over the time the shutter slit travels across the film plane.


>  What in the world was an "extinction meter"?
It is a funny type of "meter" that consists of a variable-density grey
filter and another clear plate with numbers etched on it.  You sight through
the filter and see which is the first number you can read (the darker
your surroundings are, the fewer numbers you'll be able to read)
Simple, but not very accurate.  Note that the new Kodak TelePhoto
disposable has an extinction meter of a sort.

>  Also, how can you tell if your hand-held meter uses Cds or silicon?
>(I have a sekonic auto-leader l-188).
silicon (actually selenium) meters are self-powered, so they need no
battery.  Also, selenium cells are typically much larger than cds cells,
and generally have some sort of diffuser in front of them (the classic
"honeycomb" lens, for example)  Don't know about your meter, but some
Sekonic selenium meters have a white duffuser over the cell.
Pros/cons:  Seleneum meters need no battery and are generally more accurate
due to faster response time and better color sensitivity, but have poor
sensitivity to low light.  Selenium cells also "wear out" as they exposed to
light, so don't leave your selenium meter in the sun!  Cds cells work better
in low light, but require external power. 

                 -- Marty



Newsgroups: rec.photo