HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mtm@CAMIS.Stanford.EDU (Mike Macgirvin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: putting photos on a wall.. (?)
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:14:49 GMT
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA


>> damn! I just deleted my original msg. Anyway - I want to put A LOT of
>> pictures on my wall - INEXPENSIVELY. I'm talking about 50-100 photos, 
>> which rules out thumb tacks, nails, and definitely frames.
>> Once again - it's a very hard plaster wall.
>>
>> mike "almost unemployed student with little cash to spend" graham

> Mike, it seems you are in a dilemma. :-) I guess doing your own
> "mounting" on foam-board is the way to go.

	I have been using those "collage" frames which have cutouts
for several pictures, that you can get at your local K-mart or other
discount store. The larger ones can hold around fifteen or twenty
photos, but they aren't that big (12 X 16 ?). I have three of them
currently. I've been toying with the idea of buying a larger frame,
like 24 X 40 or so, and making my own "cutouts", because the K-mart
specials all seem to have different size and orientation cutouts than
my favorite pics, (and as my photos get better, there's more I want to
display ...). You can put up the frames with sticky hangers rather
than nails if the wall's too hard.

mike
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: 80-200/f2.8 for $$$, why?
Distribution: na
Date: 20 Nov 92 02:03:28 GMT

In <1992Nov19.190849.21964@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen) writes:

>>3 - Ability to retain AF operation with a 2x multiplier and even a 1.4x
>>multiplier in the example you give above (the 200 at 4.5 probably won't AF
>>with a Canon 1.4x).

>Bob, 

>My information source could be wrong, but when I called Canon 800 number,
>they said neither Canon 2X or 1.4X worked with 80-200/f2.8L. In fact
>they told me neither of them would not work with any zoom lens. 

>But your arguement should still be valid for non-EF lenses.

Although the Canon teleconverters will not work with the 80-200/2.8L,
the Tamron teleconverters will (as mentioned in the FAQ).

>Jason Chen

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: "martin tai" <martin.tai@canrem.com>
Subject: rolleiflex
Reply-To: "martin tai" <martin.tai@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 21 Nov 92 08:38:28 EST

You  mean   TLR  Rolleiflex, twin lens reflex Rolleiflex.
You  can  find them at the  camera store in  the intersection
of   Church/ Queen street in downtown Toronto, for instance
Alt or Henry or  Hayden.   They came with  Zeiss 2.8  Planar
or Tessar lens.

    There are newer  SLR  Rolleiflex, like the  6008 model
with  interchangeble  Zeiss lenses.  Pricy and good quality.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: weld@chilliwack.cs.washington.edu (Daniel S. Weld)
Subject: Question about flash and the  Canon EOS 1 
Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science & Eng.
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:00:21

I just bought an EOS 1 (which I absolutely *love*) after considering an N90
and 8080s - am very happy with my choice except for one thing. Although the
manual says that the camera is supposed to flash sync at up to 250, when it
is in program mode it consistently chooses 1/60 (with some small apeture)
and the program shift feature is disabled.

Am I doing something wrong? It's annoying to have to go to shutter priority
to get the speed I want. 

Thanks

    Daniel Weld
    Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering
    Mail Stop FR-35                            Internet: weld@cs.washington.edu
    University of Washington                   Phone:    (206) 543-9196
    Seattle, WA 98195                          Fax:      (206) 543-2969
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mkuhn@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Martin W Kuhn)
Subject: Re: Old Polaroid film replacement wanted
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:45:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.043147.20317@cs.tulane.edu> bellaire@cs.tulane.edu (TV's Steve) writes:
>

>I am looking for some film for a Polaroid Speedliner Land Camera, Model 95a.  
>The manual says that it takes Type 41 Polaroid Land picture rolls.  I would 
>like to get some film to use with this camera, and figured this would be a 
>good place to ask.

Well, the "modern" Polaroid rollfilms are Type 42 (ASA 200) and Type 47
(ASA 3000) Both are panchromatic B&W print films.  (Both of these films 
came out in the 50's, so they aren't exactly "modern"...)


HOWEVER:
  Unfortunately, Polaroid discontinued all roll films as of June of this year.
So, the only way to get some is to try and find a store that still happens to
have some in stock, as there is none being made anymore.  So, find what film
you can, and stick it in the refrigerator...


BTW, if someone out there has some quanity of Type 47 to sell, (reasonably
priced) let me know; I might be interested.
I'd really like to be able to keep using my 110A and many other rollfilm
Land cameras...  (No, I don't plan to convert my 110A to pack film...) 


                 --Marty
From: 739chan1@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: one looks fatter(thinner) in photos?
Date: 23 Nov 92 12:24:41 EST
Summary: Wide Angle, Distortion
Distribution: world
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Nov16.165057.12407@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>
>> If the photo didn't look like reality, then that would
>> mean that the camera lens is not shaped correctly.
>>[.....] 
>> I suspect that its just that photos don't lie
>> - you see every bump, bruise and every bit of "largeness"
>> - or that we don't expect any `defects' in advertisement photos.
>>[......]
>> 
>> As an aside note - I remember years ago seeing a video
>> by Stevie Nicks and wondering if they used a special lens
>> which distorted her to make her look thinner.  Is that possible? 
> There are lenses which can distort images in such a way as to make objects
> "thinner" or "fatter". They are called anamorphic(sp?) lenses. They are not
> normally used in general photography. They distort in one dimension and
 
  Or you could use a wide angle lens to produce the effect. Try taking a
vertical shot of someone from Ground level with a 35mm lens. There is
sufficient wide angle effect to "stretch" the persons legs and make it appear
they have longer legs. 
  The inherent distortion of wide angle (and some zoom lens) does stretch the
picture horizontally, especially at the edges. If there are people photographed
at the edges, they will be "stretched" and consequently, look fatter.
________________________________________________________________________
Chan Lee Meng        \  "It doesn't impress the girls of course but
739chan1@gw.wmich.edu \   there's no sense impressing them and then
X92chan3@gw.wmich.edu  \   getting killed, my dad used to say.."
Western Michigan Univ.  \   - Hobbes (Bill Watterson)
From: michelle@play.esd.sgi.com (Michelle Boyd)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Labs in the SF Bay Area
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:26:48 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

I like Custom Color.  They are off of 101, between
San Antonio and Rengsdorff.  I don't know how
their prices compare to other labs.  They are a 
commercial lab.  I take my 35mm slides there, but
I've seen people with 2 1/4, 4X5, and 8X10 stuff.

Exit 101 at San Antonio, head away from the bay (west or south)
Left at Charleston (Light)
Left at the first road -- this is either Commercial or Industrial
Custom Color is about half way down on the right.  They have 
purple & blue letters and logo painted on the building and
a bright pink door.  It's kind of hard to see through the
trees.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky)
Subject: Re: Backwards lens compatibility (was Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:12:57 GMT

In article <PD.92Nov18104348@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.204831.5560@crd.ge.com> kassover@rumsey.crd.ge.com (David Kassover) writes:
>
>>In article <PD.92Nov17105403@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>>...
>>>
>>>I don't think it's such a big deal though. I didn't choose any of the
>>>above brands when I bought into an AF-system. I didn't buy an AF-camera
>>>to use old MF-lenses.
>
>>Ah, but suppose one wanted to buy a new camera body, and didn`t
>>particularly care about AF  (or specifically didn't want it).
>>What are the choices these days?
>
>The choices are still quite many, but getting fewer. If you
>specifically don't want AF the question about backwards lens
>compatibility becomes moot, since you don't need (or want) AF lenses
>in that case.
>--

sorry, per, but i don't agree with you there.  the nikkor AF lenses
are (generally speaking) lighter, better, and cheaper than their
non-AF counterparts.  so, you can buy a N6000 (US designation, sorry)
or an FM2n or an F2AS or whatever and take advantage of the
latest optics...there's more to mount compatibility than using
OLD glass on NEW cameras!

duane
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Pentax 67 Repair
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:38:55 GMT


My Pentax 67 has a small chain hanging down behind the
lens (which wasn't there before.)  I live in NYC - does
anyone have a suggestion about where I can take it to get
it repaired?

Thanks.

Greg
-- 
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.
From: christos@cco.caltech.edu (Christos S. Christoforou)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: 35-105 AF Nikkor for sale
Date: 23 Nov 1992 16:16:20 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu


Hi!
I have a 35-105 AF Nikkor for sale.
It is the ``older'' model, with macro at the
105mm end.
The lens is perfect, both optically and mechanically.
I have its original box.

The price is $275 and I pay shipping.

reply by e-mail if interested at
christos@cco.caltech.edu
From: kassover@rumsey.crd.ge.com (David Kassover)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Backwards lens compatibility (was Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought)
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:48:31 GMT
Organization: nope

In article <PD.92Nov17105403@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
...
>
>I don't think it's such a big deal though. I didn't choose any of the
>above brands when I bought into an AF-system. I didn't buy an AF-camera
>to use old MF-lenses.

Ah, but suppose one wanted to buy a new camera body, and didn`t
particularly care about AF  (or specifically didn't want it).
What are the choices these days?


-- 
David Kassover             "Proper technique helps protect you against
uupsi!khazad!kassover	          sharp weapons and dull judges."
kassover@aule-tek.com                   F. Collins
kassover@ra.crd.ge.com
From: dtang@bass.bu.edu (yunfei zhang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: rec.photo FAQ and answers
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:20:34 GMT
Reply-To: dtang@bass.bu.edu
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Boston University

> Do I need a 'circular' polarizer, and what is one, anyway?
> 
>         Circular polarizers are just like regular polarizers, but
>         have an additional optical element to stir the light up
>         after the filter has done its thing. This stirring keeps
>         autofocus mechanisms and some light-metering mechanisms from
>         getting confused by polarised light. If the manual says you need
>         to use one, you likely do.

The above is what I just read from the rec.photo FAQ.  Frankly, I
don't think it is well written.  The only thing I learned from 
above is that a "regular" polarizer may confuse the auto-focus
machanism, but I still do not understand why.

I understand the differece between linearly polarized light and
circularly polarized but I have a tough time to understand how
the CP will do the same job as LP without fool the autofocus
system.

Anybody has a better explanation to satisfy my curiosity? (Thanks)

DMT

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers)
Subject: Re: Tree Sap
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:22:04 GMT

In article <1eb7k9INNrkq@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com>, milt@sdd.hp.com (Milt Fisher) writes:
|> I recently got some tree sap on my Nikon 8008s.  I was wondering if anyone can
|> recommend from experience a safe way to remove it.  I called Nikon.  They
|> said to try washing it off with a damp rag, and if that didn't work to send
|> it to the service center.  I haven't tried it yet, but I doubt that water
|> will remove tree sap.  Sending it to Nikon seems like overkill and a waste of
|> time and money.  Does anyone know whether a little paint thinner will harm the
|> finish?  Would rubbing alcohol work?
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> 
|> -- 
|> 
|> Milt Fisher - Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
|> milt@sdd.hp.com

Mild soap & water should remove it.  You neglected to state
where the sap landed.  If its on the shutter, I would take NIKON's
suggestion.  

Generally, start small & build up.  If soap&water don't work 
go to rubbing alcohol.  If it wrecks the finish, don't blame me :-)

--- hans
From: leung@easi.enet.dec.com (SIU-WANG LEUNG)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: PK-12 mailer for Fuji slide film?
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:56:20 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


	Hi everyone!  I have a question about Kodulax slide mailer.  I bought
some 120 Velvia slide film a while ago.  Now I find out there is hardly any
photo labs that process 120 slide film, even when they do it is too expensive
for me anyway.  So, I purchased some Kodulax mailer PK-12.  However, the mailer
specifies only Kodak Ektachrome or Kodachrome.  Could anyone tells me if I can
use them for Fuji slide film?

         Thank you for your help.


Siu-Wang Leung
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Resolution of Lens ???
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:02:48 GMT

In article <Uf2JFiO00iV1M5dkha@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Frank A. Reynolds" <fr0c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> I am looking for general answer to this question, so no need to get real
> technical.
> 
> As I understand it when a lens is tested for resolution it is placed,
> say 10 feet, in front of test pattern and the resolution is judged by
> the number of lines per mm that can be counted from a image of the test
> pattern (either on film or some optical devise).

Correct

> 
> 1.  If say a 50mm, 100mm, and 200mm lens is tested they are all tested at the
>     same distance of 10 feet, right?

Probably not, unless you wanted the resolution of each lens at 10 ft only.

> 
> 2.  If yes to No. 1; does that mean that the resolution test of a lens is
>     relative to the distance it was made at.  In other words should the test
>     results state that at "10 feet" this 50mm lens can yield X lines per mm,
>     at "10 feet" this 100mm lens Y lines per mm, and at "10 feet" this 200mm
>     lens Z lines per mm?
> 

Yes. If you have any of the old Modern Photography tests, you will see that
they actually do this (they state 1:25 etc. as discussed below).

> 3.  If yes to No. 1; would it not be a more meaningful comparison of lens to
>     test them so that the test pattern is evaluated at the same magnification
>      regardless of the focal length of the lens (lets say 1:4), rather than
>     testing all lens at the same distance?
> 

Absolutely (though 1:4 is not ideal). Most lenses will show higher resolution
when operating at say 1:30 than 1:4 (JUST in the "Macro" range). I would
suggest testing in the 1:25 to 1:50 range if you want the best numbers. Of
course if you are interested in "Macro" resolution then you should test the
lens under the "Macro" conditions you are interested in.


===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: Jimmy.Tung@dartmouth.edu (Jimmy Tung)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Turning photos into jig-saw puzzles
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:17:19 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

It's on the wrong side of the country, but Vermont Color provides this
service.  I think that the photomug, photopuzzle, photocalendar, photo
T-shirt, photo statue-doodads, etc. business must be booming because it
seems that many 60 minute places out here offer these services.

e-mail for the number.  They have a mail-order service also, but I use
one of the local shops.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rct@fulcrum.co.uk (Richard Taylor)
Subject: Opinions on SLRs - EOS or 3xi.
Organization: Fulcrum Communications
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:28:29 GMT

I'm looking to purchase an SLR, after having used a friends manual SLR. I'm
looking for the following features:
	fast autofocus
	simple use
	relatively lightweight
	medium price
	
It's most difficult task will be autosport shots (autofocus may not be fast
enough for this? In which case I need to be able to override it.).

It seems that a lot of cameras suit have these, and the two that I have
noticed are the Canon EOS and Minolta 3xi.

Would someone care to elucidate what differences there are, or are they so
similar that it doesn't matter? Is there something better than these
two, for the price?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,
============================================================================
Richard Taylor                  DoD #981                 (rct@fulcrum.co.uk)
   Heard about the dyslexic devil worshipper who sold his soul to Santa?
============================================================================
Fulcrum Communications Ltd., Fordrough Lane, Birmingham, B9 5LD, ENGLAND.
From: ecologycntr@igc.apc.org (Ecology Center)
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: Christmas tree alternative?
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:26:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Nov17.092118.5813@athena.cs.:-1453080133:cdp:1453300101:000:1953
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecologycntr    Nov 19 09:26:00 1992


We here at the ecology center have become kinda the local experts on
the environmental impacts of xmas trees. Here are a few things we tell people
that they may not have thought of.

Though there still are places where you can go onto wild forestland and
"harvest" a wild tree, most cut trees are farmed, often in urban-suburban
areas which would probably hold minimalls if it wasn't for the tree farm.

The environmental impact of your tree choice includes transportation from the
farm to the lot, then to your house, then to the area where the tree is
disposed of. (planting of a live tree is included in the term "disposal".)
Cut trees weigh much less than live trees, due to the absence of a rootball;
they therefore use less energy to transport.

Though reusable trees can provide an alternative, most people throw out their 
"fake" trees after an average of 3 years, removing mosty of the[advantage over live trees, especially when you consider the impacts of prodution of those trees. (plastic and aluminum are not benign materials.) Though,
theoretically, you could plant a live tree in a pot and use it year after
year, VERY FEW people actually do this, preferring to plant the tree
"somewhere" and buy a new one each year rather than taking care of a tree.
(convenience without guilt is the apparent goal here.)

Many cut trees sold in the West are Monterey Pines; if cut above the first
(lowest) branch, that branch can be retrained as a leader, producing a "new tree" in a few years. 

Finally, most popular Xmas tree species are native to fairly small areas. Replanting live trees out in "the wild" can be very disruptive of the local silvic
flora. At best, the tree dies. At worst, you get monterey pines taking over
your dry grasslands.

So it ain't that clearcut (pardon the logging pun). People concerned about
the effects of their holiday celebrations on the planet should spend their
time thinking about what's under the tree.

chris
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
From: bobw@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Bob Wildfong)
Subject: Ethics in gardening (was Re: Domestication of poison ivy)
Organization: Computer Systems Group, University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:37:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.152842.5843@infonode.ingr.com> jimreed@b23b.b23b.ingr.com writes:
>Is it ethical for people to kill native plants if they find them
>unattractive?  Is it ethical to kill harmful plants that have sprung
>up volunteer?

Gardening has always been considered an inherently "good" activity.  Old
garden journals (circa 1900) are full of such rhetoric as "If you have two
loaves of bread, sell one, buy some flower seeds and plant a garden to feed
your soul".  Gardening has even been used as a rehabilitative tool in prisons
in the belief that once a hardened criminal learns to care and nurture a tiny,
vulnerable, living thing, he will naturally turn from his previous ways.

The turn of the century was an idealistic era.  Still, I think they were on
the right track in some respects.

IMHO, it's only relatively recently that certain aspects and practices of 
gardening have come into question.  The issues of chemical vs organic, native
vs introduced species, heirloom vs hybrid vs genetically engineered, etc are
new to most gardeners.  There have always been debates about how to till,
or how to seed, but we've never had to make decisions which might affect the
futures of entire species, ecosystems and habitats.

Do we, as a society, even know what we want?  In other areas of ethics, such
as those dealing with crime, poverty, industrial pollution, there is at least
a general consensus as to what is "right", even if no one knows how to achieve
the "right" results.

I don't know for sure that there is such a consensus concerning native plants. 
Does the average person care if their imported groundcover kills off some
native species (they're just weeds, aren't they?)


What do you all think?  Is there a consensus that native plants should be
cherished, even if it means changing current gardening/landscaping habits?
Or is beauty the prime goal (it always has been)?  Maybe we should just
globalise the use of the very best landscaping plants.  Then everyone could
enjoy the best that the world has to offer.
 

Bob Wildfong                                       bobw@csg.uwaterloo.ca
Waterloo, Ontario                                  bobw@csg.waterloo.edu
AgCan zone 5a, USDA zone 4 (on a windy hilltop)

                Success in gardening is finding the right 
                 balance between tolerance and defiance.
From: klier@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: The Ailanthus Tree
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:28:10 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Nov20.080559.715@ab.wvnet.edu>, del_col@ab.wvnet.edu writes:
> Ailanthus altissima  (AKA Tree of Heaven)
 is a fast growing, weedy tree that
> the broken wood produces a foul odor(the tree has another common name with the
> word "stinking" in it, but I can't remember what it is--it is not Stinking
> Cedar--that's a Torreya(sp?) species.  

Gee, just stinking?  You easterners are so polite... we call it catpiss tree.

Kay