HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: moreaux@litsun22.epfl.ch (Michel Moreaux)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: invisible flash?
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:25:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Laboratoire d'informatique technique
In-reply-to: peterwu@microsoft.com's message of 2 Oct 92 05:47:08 GMT


| Is it possible to use infrared flash and a correponding film such that the
| resulting picture looks almost like it was shot with normal flash on
| normal film?
| 
| This would be of great use when shooting in no-flash zones (e.g. wedding
| ceremony, opera) and when fine gain (low speed film) is desirable.

Fine grain ?!? You said fine grain ?
Have you ever tried IR films ?
Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! I am dying for laughing ...

_Michel Moreaux


PS : Personally, I use flashes during the wedding ceremony even when the Priest
     ordered not to do so. I believe that there are occasions when good pictures
     are mandatory. I mean that I only know people who were happy with their
     "flashes into the church" pictures (in the memory, images are fading along
     the years, they are fading more than "real" pictures, and two years later
     it is great to remember the ceremony with good pictures ...).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Moreaux,                           | "Ceux qui ne savent rien en savent
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne  |  toujours tout autant que ceux qui
Departement d'Informatique                |  n'en savent pas plus qu'eux"
Laboratoire d'Informatique Technique      |                  P. Dac.
EL-Ecublens                               |___________________________________
CH-1015 Lausanne                           
Phone # : (21) 693-46-72,   e-mail : moreaux@litsun.epfl.ch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: F4s /8008s etc (Nikon)
Date: 6 Oct 1992 19:40:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Oct5.195230.7354@cerritos.edu> jacobs@cerritos.edu writes:
>(Lakhinder Walia) writes:
>> This is regarding the eye-piece shutter provided for F4, and a small
>> plastic masking cup for 8008s.
>> I dont understand why should they be there at all, because my premise is:
>> the metering has to be some where in the camera body - but not in the prism
>> housing : for how would otherwise the matrix balance and flash fill exposure
>> work..? 
 
Well, you might consider that some cameras have more than one metering-cell 
location.  Say, one (or a pair of) cell up near the focusing screen used for 
average or center-weighted metering, and a second one down in the basement 
of the shutter box looking at the film during flash exposure. 
 
There are dozens of different layouts, some isolated from light coming in 
though the viewfinder, others not.  (Metering stuff living in the prism 
housing used to be fairly common.) 
 
>> the reason being that the measurements have to be done during  the
>> actual exposure time, i.e when the prism housing is shut-off by the mirror.
>> And since the prism housing module is completely cut-off, why bother about
>> putting a shutter/blind on the eye-piece contained therein..?
>
>The eye-piece shutter is meant to block out extraneous light during time
>exposures, such as astral photography, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with
>metering.
 
Unless you have a leaky mirror (the which is up and locked during the
exposure period), then why have the eyepiece shutter?  (Which is to say,
it don't buy you anything if that's the case.)

A more likely reason to have an eyepiece shutter would be for those cameras
whose metering cells read off a half-silvered portion of the focusing screen,
and who might be misled by getting extra light coming in through the eyepiece
if you use the camera with your eye away from the viewfinder, like when you
shoot something from a tripod.  (This would only be a problem in autoexposure
mode, since you usually have to look through the finder to adjust manual
exposure.)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Gleichauf)
Subject: Re: about N90.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:06:45 GMT

In article <NICHOLS.92Sep27144631@offa.cs.odu.edu>, nichols@offa.cs.odu.edu (teresa nichols) writes:
|> 
|> To any of you have played with the demo model - I did yesterday. Nice feel
|> sharp focusing, excellent design. From a confirmed Canon addict, I was
|> very impressed with the feel of the camera itself.
|> 

	It is interesting how sharply impressions can differ from opposite 
sides of the Canon-Nikon camps.  I too had a chance to play with an N90
fresh out of the box. (one of three sitting on the shelf).  My impression 
is that this is not a professional level camera because of the control layout.
It is difficult not to just find the controls, that could be a learned in time,
but also to access them with eye remaining at the finder.  The F4 finder is also
more informative.  As an excellent high end advanced amateur camera it will
probably find a solid market niche. It cannot replace the F3 in professional
terms, as someone else has posted, but it may be substituted in the product line
because of slumping F3 sales. Everything I tried worked well and relatively
quickly, but I would not use it as a second body for sports photography, as yet
another poster mentioned.  The functionality is not seamless and access is not
quick enough for very fast action useage.

								Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pdn@fc.hp.com (Paul Nuber)
Subject: WANT: Information About LIGHT METER!!!
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:18:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.3 PL6]

I have a Sekonic L-328, which I am happy with.  It measures incident and
reflected, flash and continuous light.  I paid $250 for it.


--
Paul Nuber
pdn@fc.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Fort Collins, CO
From: tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:58:10 GMT
Subject: Re: More than 37 exposures/roll with 8008s?
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc Sarrel) writes:

[deletions...]

> Also, what's a good solution to the "I have 37 exposures and my neg
> file holds 35 exposures and I can only fit 35 exposures on an 8x10
> proofsheet anyway" problem.

A) Make sure that a really lousy frame (blurred, underexposed, etc.)
   ends up at frame number ((N x 6) + 1), where N is from the set
   {0,1,2,...}. Cut around it.
   
B) Shoot 35 frames. This represents a loss of 5.41% of the value received
   from each roll of film. On the good side, your negative page dollars go
   twice as far.

Your problem restated: "What's so sacred about 36 frames anyway?"

:-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  

Post all flames to /dev/null.
From: mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow)
Subject: Re: Lens Focusing (was Re: lens tests..)
Keywords: lens tests patterns
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:10:27 GMT


In most SLRs, a camera repairperson can adjust the position of the
focussing screen relative to the film plane so that in-focus at the
viewing screen coincides with in-focus at the film plane. A simple test
of whether manual focus is accurate is to create a chart with verticle
lines, with the target line in the center marked. With the camera
about 45 degrees to the target, focus on the marked line, expose and
develop the film. When examined with a loupe the negative should 
show approximately and equal number of lines in focus in front of and
behind the target line (some folks like slightly more lines in focus
behind the target than in front).

In a manual focus camera, whether one uses the ground glass vs. the
split image vs. the microprism can have a slight effect on optimal
focus. I found that when doing lens tests on my Nikon FMs, the ground
glass gave the most accurate focus, whereas the spilt image tended to
back-focus slightly. Focus is critical with wide aperature, available
light portraits, where you usually want the eyes and eyebrows in 
sharpest focus.

In autofocus cameras, I'll be that manual optical focus can be adjusted
to agree with the autofocus plane by a camera repairperson.
-- 
Michael Volow, Psychiatry, Durham VA Med Center, Durham NC 27712
919 286 0411 Ext 6933               mvolo@uncecs.edu
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Don't Buy From Smile Photo
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:49:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: chpc.1992Oct2.174905.25005
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma


>Then again, there's no connection between Slime and Smile except for the
>same letters being used. So to get presented with a libel suit, you;d
>have to say, "Slime Photo, of such and such State, with such and such
>phone number etc etc." Otherwise one could claim to be talking about anyone
>company.


I'm sure your attorney would be able to make this point clear once (s)he
had collected his/her retainer to defend you.
Xref: sparky rec.photo:17217 ne.forsale:4363 misc.forsale:27654
From: ryuen@BBN.COM (Ray Yuen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,ne.forsale,misc.forsale
Subject: Flash Lighbox forsale
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:26:34 GMT
Reply-To: ryuen@BBN.COM (Ray Yuen)
Distribution: na
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com




                   Flash lightbox FORSALE

Chimera Mini/Max Convertible Lightbox, Brand New-Never Used
   - 16x22 convertible silver-lined lightbank
   - Large shoe mount speed ring (for Vivitar 283/285 flashes)
   - Left hand Chimera camera grip
   - Chimera mini duffle bag
   - Retail price is $225.00
PRICE : $100.00


Please respond to Ray Yuen at   (617)873-8627  days
				(617)783-1714  evenings
or via e-mail (ryuen@bbn.com)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hintzman@hpljah.hpl.hp.com (Jeff Hintzman)
Subject: Re: Kodak Polycontrast paper
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 15:54:04 GMT
Reply-To: hintzman@hpljah.hpl.hp.com
Organization: HP IC Business Division R&D, Palo Alto, CA

In article <12430071@hpmwnpd2.sr.hp.com>, allana@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Allan Armstrong) writes:
|> I have a related question.
|> 
|> I have a set of Ilford filters that came with some Ilford polycontrast
|> paper. I also have 100 sheets of Kodak polycontrast paper. I've been
|> using the Ilford filters with the Kodak paper without any problems, but
|> I'd still like to know if the filters work exactly the same... that is
|> does a #3 filter give me the same results on both papers?
|> 

I think that the Kodak Polycontrast filters are slightly different than
the Ilford filters.  They will still "work", but a #3 filter does not give
the same results on each.  

Along those lines, does anybody have any experience with Agfa multigrade
paper?  Do they use Ilford or Kodak filters, or do they have yet another
set?

-Jeff

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hintzman                                  hintzman@hpljah.hpl.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Integrated Circuit Business Division 
Palo Alto, CA                                              (415) 857-7616
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: v462etnn@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (David L Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Repair Contax I?
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:19:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Hloe!

I just inherited my grandfather's Contax I and I'd like to
get it in working order again.  Has anyone had any experience
with any of the advertisers in _Shutterbug_?  I don't want
to send it to someone who can't repair it; I'd rather send it
to someone who might specialize in older 35mm.  Thanks in
andvance.

David Anderson
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: swatko@airbag.enet.dec.com (Mike Swatko)
Subject: Re: Can I rinse a slide in water without risk of damage?
Reply-To: swatko@airbag.enet.dec.com (Mike Swatko)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua, NH
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:12:53 GMT

--
In article <1992Sep29.220433.29840@col.hp.com>, cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best) writes:
>> Personally, I'm not in the habit of spitting on my slides... ;-)
>
>With reference to spitting on things, here's what I do in a pinch:
>
>If I HAVE to blow on something with my mouth, I get the airflow
>going first, and then aim it at the object.  This way, any spit
>will fly (hopefully) before the object is in firing range.


Q:  How can you tell an amateur photographer from a pro?...

A:  A pro can blow without spitting.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
===========================================================================
From: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Next Nikon camera: An AF interchangeable lens rangefinder?
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:11:30 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems





>Believe it or not, Nikon is in process of producing a new professional
>rangefinder camera which will do autofocus with all Nikon AF lenses, and
>will accept all manual Nikon lenses. Following are some primary information
>about the camera, it's up to you to believe or disbelieve the information.
I
This is an interesting concept, but I gotta wonder how it would sell?

* A traditional RFDR advantage is lightness, quietness, quickness, but this
	camera sounds like it would have autoadvance, need battery storage
	for the AF and advance etc.  In short, it sounds like a bridge camera
	that would take interchangeable lenses, which leads me to my second
	question...

* If I have to buy Nikkor SLR lenses anyway (retrofocus design for wide angle,
	room for autoaperture, motors, etc., and thus much larger than comparable
	traditional RFDR lenses), why not just buy an SLR?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Subject: Re: multiple aperture markings on a large-format lens
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 11:39:11 GMT


In article <97pL02EL23JQ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com
(Barry Sherman) writes:
|> donl mathis writes:
|> 
|> [ discussion of convertible large format lenses deleted ]
|> 
|> >You people with your zoom lenses.  Things weren't always so cushy.  :)
|> 
|> So when's the long rumored (at least for the last 5 minutes) Schneider
|> Hyper-Symmar HM Wide Field 65-500 f2.8 tele zoom due out?

I think I do remember seeing something in Shutterbug about a zoom from
Schneider or some such company, a while back...  seems to me it was
something like a 200-210 or thereabouts.  Whatever it was, I recall the
range was significantly less than 2:1, probably less than 1.5:1.  Just
amazing.

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
From: sheng@skink.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ming-Jye Sheng)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: No more questions after your credit card # is revealed
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:58:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science


Never give out your credit card number while you still have unanswered 
questions. 

I called B&H this afternoon to place an order on some accessories 
for my camera, the salesperson was very anxious to get my credit card number, 
so I gave it to him thinking that he might answer my questions more willingly
if he got what he wanted. 
But as soon as he had my number, he hung up the phone immediately without
saying anything.

I wasn't sure if he would put insurance on my equipments since I didn't
even have a chance to ask!
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jims@hsi.com (Jim Switalski)
Subject: Tokina 28-70/3.5-4.5 MF vs AF question
Organization: 3M Health Information Systems, Wallingford, CT.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:26:53 GMT

Background:
        I ordered the above (Tokina SZ 28-70/3.5-4.5) MF lens for 
	my Pentax K-1000 from B&H in early September.  I ran into the old 
	it was in stock, but not when they went to fill the order.  
	They have no idea when they might get the lens from
	Tokina (or whoever they get their stuff from).  I got a call
	asking if I wanted to keep the order on hold, cancel the order, or
	substitute an auto focus version of the lens (for same price).
	BTW - they've already charged my credit card (although they told me
	they'd credit my card if I cancel). Seems kinda bogus of them to
	charge me before they ship the item.  8-(

Question:
	What I'd like to know is, what kind of differences are there between
	the auto focus and the manual focus?  Someone has mentioned to me 
	that the AF would be a little heavier.  Is that about it or are 
	there other factors which should influence my decision????  
	The K-1000 is fully manual, so the AF feature would not be useful. 
	However, if I got an AF Pentax in the future (which I'm not planning 
	to do at this time), I guess the AF could be a plus.

	Any suggestions as to go with the AF or not would be helpful.  
	Thanks in advance.


	-jims
-- 
Jim Switalski                      |        I think Calloway and
3M Health Information Systems      |        Mulligan were Friends 
..!uunet!hsi!jims or jims@hsi.com |          - S. Cramer
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Press Camera Questions...........................
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:17:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: nntpd2.1992Oct6.221738.1021
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Distribution: na
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Oct6.004256.541@craycos.com>, sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
|>There was a 1/1000 sec LEAF shutter available for the Super - that's one of the
|>reasons why the FP shutter was dropped, I thought. It's a pretty neat piece of
|>work - it couples to the electric release on the body. I have *no* idea how accurate
|>it is, since I've never owned one.
I've never seen a 1/1000 of a second leaf shutter.  Even today, the fastest
commericially made leaf shutters just go up to 1/500 (copal/seiko/prontor #0). 
The "electric" lens board is neat (I've got one).  But it's only electrical
connections are the bi-post flash connections.  The shutter is tripped
mechanically from a solinoid built into the front standard that grabs a tang on
the lensboard.  This in turn, pulls down an adjustable rod which trips the
shutter.

|>>|>Do any models allow lens tilt about the horizontal axis?
|>>I though the speed had some tilt.  The super tilts in both directions and has a
|>>drop bed (although only one position).
|>
|>My Speed has no swings or tilts, only front rise and a drop bed. I have seen
|>Crowns with tilts.
Look on your speed, two small knobs at either side of the base of the front
standard.  You may have to press down on sheet metal springs right under them
in order to get they to go.  If it has a drop bed than it has to have some
tilt to compensate and bring the lensboard parallel to the film plane.  You
should also get some swing and shift by loosening the locking lever on the
front standard and then depressing another wide sheet metal spring underneath.

jimf
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: terryfry@access.digex.com (Terry Fry)
Subject: Re: night exposures for traffic
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 08:06:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.015519.3100@umr.edu> tonyp@mcs213e.cs.umr.edu (Tony Phillips) writes:

>Some of my best results were achieved with Kodacolor Gold Plus 200 in
>my Pentax P30t.  I was using a Kalimar 35-70 at 35mm f/22 for 2 minutes.
>I shot the scene through my window screen which added the starlight
>effect to the stationary pin-point sources of light.

>One important thing to remember, though, if you're using print film is to
>tell the processor to print the black parts BLACK (don't compensate for
>underexposure) or you'll lose the color saturation and contrast that
>night photography can give you.

For some even better results and possibly more accurate, try Kodak's
KPA Kodachrome Type A 40ASA film.  I use it quite a bit for night "effect"
shots and it produces some very nice results.  Its a film that's not
tungsten but close (3400 kelvin?) balanced.  Traffic lights come out
in nearly the right colors... traffic lights are perfect.  I used to use
standard Kodachrome 64 but the red balance drove me nuts.  The only
problem with these sorts of shots is they are almost un-printable unless
an internegative is taken.  It handles reciprocity problems better than any
other film (good exposures up to a minute..).

Another film is the 64T tungsten in 120mm format.  On rare occasions
I can setup and shoot with my TLR, those are the way to go!
From: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Next Nikon camera: An AF interchangeable lens rangefinder?
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:20:04 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems


	The reason Nikon would introduce a rangefinder camera with
interchangeable lenses is to provide a quieter camera. There is quite obviously
a demand for a less noisy 35mm camera for instance Canon's EOS Elan and RT.
There is also a demand for a professional RF camera,for photojounalists
example, Leica keeps pumping out M-6s at $3000 or so a pop with lens and Konica 
just introduced a high quality AF rangefinder with a fixed 35mm f2.0 lens
called the Hexar. If Nikon does produce such a camera it makes sense to use SLR
lenses to provide some autoexposure functions (like a program or shutter
prefered automatic functions) as well as the cost effectiveness of producing
one lens line. THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE!!!

ext time READ the article in Popular
Photography before you start bitching about a new camera that you know nothing
about!

	Without stooping to the above level, I believe the responses were more
	well thought out than this one, for example.  The M6 is a true optical
	RFDR, with tiny lenses, and superior wide angle lenses.  It has no
	whirring of autofocusing lenses, does not require batteries, no integral
	autoadvance.  It is compact.  It has no competition, and is in a niche of 
	its own.

	The proposed Nikon (please cite which Popular Photography issue you are
	referring to) sounds like a completely different beast.

	Minolta produced a high-quality interchangeable lens, AE RFDR a few years
	ago (CLE), which was tiny with tiny lenses.  It struggled for a few years,
	was prized by a few, but not a commercial success.

	Nikon can call this camera a rangefinder, but it is not a rangefinder in the
	sense that an M6 is.  If it can be called a rangefinder, it is a rangefinder
	in the sense that an F4 is- at least from the blurb we've heard here.  That
	is, when focussing is electronic, the viewfinder becomes a composing window.

	Other than that, expressing an opinion, or questioning market viability
	is not bitching.

		Dave

Newsgroups: rec.photo