HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cholmes@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com (Craig Holmes - UK)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lens Focusing (was Re: lens tests..)
Keywords: Nikon RF camera
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:02:15 GMT
Reply-To: cholmes@pyrtech.pyramid.com (Craig Holmes - UK)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <23768@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.151813.5754@qiclab.scn.rain.com> al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman) writes:
>
>> Well there's Leica rangefinders....The bottom comes off, but access
>> to the film plane is pretty poor.  
>On the M6, at least, there's a little door that folds down after you've
>taken the bottom off so you can get at the shutter.

All the M series Leicas have the little back door, and the later ones have a
quick load takeup system that has worked pretty impeccably for me over several
models.  The older screw mount units were very fiddly in comparison.

The recent thread about a rangefinder Nikon is interesting to those who have
used Leicas for years.  Leica made a larger-than-before model in 1973, the 
M5 with a semaphore TTL cell, and it didn't do too well. Basically it was 
comparitively clumsy - my experience, I used it professionally for some years.
The current M6 and recent M4 variants have essentially changed little from the
original M3, which IHMO really does handle brilliantly for photojournalism,
stage work, quick  people work, etc. Arguments about lens comparisons with 
Nikon can continue ad nauseatum, I have found both very satisfactory. You 
can't use too many lenses wide open with spotlights shining into them, but
I've found that Leitz lenses take this sort of misuse much better than can be
reasonably expected.  I eventually bought an M6, and the same original M3
mix is there - it is quieter than any SLR I've used, and better in low light,
and having an accurate spotmeter built in suits me best for metering. Once 
you want lenses outside the wide angle to (say) 90mm range, go for an SLR.
Would a Nikon RF sell ? Perhaps, in limited quantities, if they can keep the 
rangefinder virtues like the M6 with the advantage of being able to use all
those lovely Nikon optics too.  It would obviously be more attractive with a
set of complementary lenses taking advantage of the smaller backplane to lens
mount distance needed/no mirror clearance limits, and and remember that zoom
lenses present a real challenge to rangefinder viewfinder design. The most 
attractive mix may be a limited set of special lenses like the Minolta CLE
used to have (in Leica M mount) and a robust, simple adapter to take all the
Nikon SLR lenses.  If it's any indication, the aforementioned CLE didn't do 
brilliantly market wise when new, but nowadays they sell for very high prices
and the 28mm lens in particular is rare and expensive to buy.
Craig Holmes
Pyramid Technology  (usual disclaimers)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: swgto@cs.iastate.edu (Swagato Basumallick)
Subject: Re: Don't Buy From Smile Photo
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:58:03 GMT

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>Now, if Slime Photo had up and sent you a filter, without you ordering
         ^^^^^^^^^^^
>anything from them, then you would be free to keep and use the filter
>without charge. In this case, it would be considered a gift to you.

>Bill


Intentional, or just a typo ?

Just Curious.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Where to develop films with flash-off pictures?
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:45:41 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <1992Sep28.165934.1006@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
jerzy@leland.Stanford.EDU (J. Czaplicki) wrote:
> I have films with some of the pictures taken in museums
> where, by definition, flashlight was always off. Standard
> (1-hour) developing usually causes those pictures to be
> yellowish as compared with the others, taken with flash on
> and my camera manual says it doesn't have to be so!
> 
> Could anyone recommend some place where they would do it

Jerzy-

Your problem is a matter of color temperature of the light source. 
Electronic flash has a light spectrum similar to daylight, while ordinary
incandescant light bulbs are reddish-yellow.  You don't notice it yourself,
since your eyes adjust.

The color temperature of incandescant light is such that most printers
can't compensate.  One solution would be to use a color correcting filter
on your camera at the time the picture is taken.  There are two or three
blue filters available, depending on the exact color of the light to be
compensated.  I don't recall the Wratten filter numbers you need.  The
camera store should have that information.

A drawback of using a filter, is that some light is absorbed by the filter,
resulting in a slower shutter speed for the same f/stop.  However, it would
seem to be a better idea to correct the color in the negative once, rather
than in the print, every time it is printed.

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: harold@wam.umd.edu (James B. Harold)
Subject: Re: Telephoto zoom lens recommendations wanted
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:41:05 GMT

In article <BvG8Lt.IEK@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> gauthier@fresnel.telecom.hydro.qc.ca writes:
>
>You might also considered the EF 75-300 USM. Last week i bough one in 
>San Jose (CA) for $249+tax. I shot a couple of rolls with it and i'm
> very satisfied. I maybe not a good critic since it's my first zoom...!!!

Really?  Is the 75-300 USM out now?  I'd be interested in hearing from
anybody who's seen this beast, including store names (and phone
numbers) and prices.  In particular I'd like to hear comparisons
between the 75-300 USM and the 100-300 USM.

-- 

James Harold                 "There is always an easy solution to
harold@wam.umd.edu            every human problem -- neat, plausible,
                              and wrong."    --  H. L. Mencken 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Ektar vs. Gold
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:47:54 GMT

In <1992Sep27.023612.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:

>Better meaning what? Faster? No. Finer grain, higher resolution, no contest.
>Keep in mind, that in the lab managers eyes, the ideal world is one where Gold
>100 was the only one in existance. Never have to shift channels in the printer,
>easy to print... 


I think the manager's ideal world would actually be Gold
400.  Less chance of needing to adjust for underexposure,
and the higher grain leaves more excuses for sloppy
processing.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Slide Duplicator and AF-SLRs/Minolta 7xi
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:56:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsm.1992Oct5.165624.27197
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct5.141025.24067@menudo.uh.edu>, erikstad@sdl.egr.uh.edu (  Erikstad. Stein Ove) writes:
> Hei!!
> 
> I have a problem I wonder someone can help me with.
> 
> I have just bought a slide duplicator for my Minolta 7xi.  I also got the  
> adaptorring, and everything seems to fit correctly.
> 
> However, with the slide duplicator on, the shutter release refuses to  
> react, even in manual exposure/manual focus mode.  Is this because the  
> camera can't "find" the aperture on the lens?  
> 
> Somebody out there having experienced the same problem, and/or knows some  
> remedies??  Help would be appreciated.

I'm not a Minolta user, but I seem to remember corresponding with someone
who had a similar problem in some other situation (i.e. operating without
an AF lens attached - maybe the camera was being used with a telescope).
If I remember right, there was no way to get operation without the AF lens,
but I hope for your sake I am wrong! The EOS line will operate without an
AF lens, but only if the adapter to the camera body does not trip a small
microswitch on the lens mount. I don't think the Minolta used a microswitch,
rather it sensed the electrical connection of the lens via it's AF pins.
Like I said, I hope I'm wrong and someone else can come up with a solution,
but I don't think your problem is unique.


===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: neilw@informix.com (Neil Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Ektar vs. Gold
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:48:11 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Sep29.024006.23672@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> lmitchel@nyx.cs.du.edu (lloyd mitchell) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.154851.10804@kodak.kodak.com> axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.021234.16137@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, lmitchel@nyx.cs.du.edu (lloyd mitchell) writes:
>>>
>>>So, my question is, is Gold 100 any better or worse than Ektar 25?  Also, what
>>>would be the best film for shooting computer screens with a 35mm camera?
>>
>>I would suspect that in this application, the differences between Ektar 25 
>>and Gold 100 would be minimal.  However, since noise power is additive, the
>>finer grain of the Ektar should always be measureably better, but given the 
>>extensive "phosphor" noise of the screen, it may not be discernably different
>>with your magnifications, etc...

Changing the subject slightly, has anyone compared Ektar 100 to 
Gold 100 plus or Fuju Super HG100?

I'm a HG100 user, as my testing a year ago with the "old"
Gold 100 and Ektar 125 left me less than thrilled with those
Kodak films.  

I love the grain & color rendition of Ektar 25 though, and if
Ektar 100 is similar, I'd like to hear about it.

--Neil

-- 
Neil Williams: neilw@informix.com

Seen on my last trip on United: "If you are seated in an exit row 
and can not (sic) read this card... please notify a crew member."
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Sally Mann in New York Times Sunday Magazine
From: fern@milori.ccit.arizona.edu
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:42:43 MST
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-User: fern

To all of you out there who may be interested in starting a discussion:  there
is a must-see article in the September 27 issue of the New York Times Sunday
Magazine on the photographer Sally Mann.  Can't wait to hear some comments.
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Former nikon owner
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:19:33 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


Paul Repacholi writes:
> Eugene Kowaluk writes:
> ...
> > But too late, after 15 years with Nikon I switched to Canon last month.
> 
> So, What did you get?
> ~Paul
> 


Elan.


eugene kowaluk
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tonyp@cs.umr.edu (Tony Phillips)
Subject: Why analyze color on each frame? 
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:01:34 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
Originator: tonyp@mcs213j.cs.umr.edu

As an amateur photographer with no room (or money) to build a color darkroom,
I'm forced to take my film to a processor.  One thing I've noticed that
happens to my prints really peaves me.  I'd like to know why it happens.
The problem is color balance.  Why is it necessary to adjust color filtration
on every frame?  Use a neutral negative to adjust the printer to that roll 
of film's color differences and also adjust for the batch of paper, but then
it seems like the lab should just leave the color alone.
	Case in point:  I recently took some photographs at the Great Forrest
Park Balloon race in St. Louis over the weekend.   My prints came back with
white skies and yellow trees on the pictures where the sky was predominant.
Other pictures were of friends standing in a field of green grass that was
printed dull, and the skin tones had an ugly magenta color in them.  I asked
the lab tech why this occurred and he told me that it was the printer adjusting
out the over-saturated green.  
	Well, I don't WANT this.  I'm gonna start shooting slides (since 
what's in front of you is basically what you get).  Why should prints be
any different?

Thanks for clearing up the matter for me,


-- 
|  Tony Phillips-  University of Missouri CS Dept.  |  Programmer:  A noun   |
|                                                   |  meaning 'The Art of   |
|  Reply to:  tonyp@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu              |  debugging a blank     |
|  Prefered Address:  S102066@UMRVMA.UMR.EDU        |  sheet of paper'       |
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mcfearin@convex.com (Lee Mcfearin)
Subject: Re: How to make a good ghost illusion?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:12:38 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.

I tried some a while back.  I wanted an image where the ghost was moving
to a position.  I was inside and used a 15 second shutter speed 
(with f/[high number] and color correction filters).  The first 8 seconds, 
the model stayed in place.  For the last 7 seconds, the model walked 
incresingly faster away from where he origionally stood.

This method enabled me to direct the pose of the standing ghost. It also
kept me from worring about moving the camera while re-cocking the
shutter for a second exposure.  

lee
--
Lee McFearin.                                   #include <std/disclaim.h>
mcfearin@convex.com

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sevenup@netcom.com (Mark W. Moorcroft)
Subject: Nikon 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye <FOR SALE>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:22:08 GMT


This lens is about 1.5 years old and has been on my F4 about 6 times.
I like the results but it has limited applications for me at the
moment and I need a telephoto desperately by the 15th for the air
show. Make me a sensable offer if interested. I have the original
packaging and docs. I will consider trades as well because as I said,
I need a telephoto (in the 300 - 400 range).


--thanx

-- 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 Mark W. Moorcroft -- sevenup@netcom.COM -- C.I.S. 70741,325
-------------------------------------------------------------
  "I speak for myself and those who agree with me !"   ;-)
From: jacobs@cerritos.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Developing TMAX P3200 pushed to 6400
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:16:31 PST
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA

In article <1992Sep28.141032.17591@phcomgw.seri.philips.nl>, klomp@tokyo.seri.philips.nl (Ernst Klomp) writes:
> Anyone familiar with developing TMAX P3200 pushed to 6400 in Agfa Rodinal
> or Ilford Perceptol.
> 

	First of all Kodak makes a fine developer (T-Max) for the job if fine
grain is what you are after, secondly if you want even finer grain, I would try
Unicolor's Pressmaxx developer. It will provide finer grain and it comes with
developing times. If you desire less grain still try Fuji Neopan 1600 in T-Max
developer, Fuji provides developing times with the film. 
	Now, if grain is desired for effect try Kodak HC-110 (dilution B) or
D-76 (undiluted), they both should give grainier effects. I should warn you
that film developed this way will have more contrast. If you are after more
grain than that try Kodak Recording Film (RE 2475) and develop it in DK-50 or
D-76. Recording Film may be getting hard to find as Kodak may have discontinued  
it. 

Sean
 	
________________________________________________________________________________Karl Jacobs - Jacobs@cerritos.edu

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: beaty@zirkel.lance.colostate.edu (steve beaty)
Subject: For Sale: Bogen 3047 tripod head.
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 04:30:51 GMT
Distribution: USA
Organization: Colorado State University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

	i've got a spare Bogen 3047 tripod head in good condition.  B&H
	has got them new for $50.  how about $30 and shipping?

		steve beaty@longs.lance.colostate.edu

disk-claimer: n. a small computer program that removes all traces of my
employer's responsibility from all media containing these lines.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Legal aspects and copyright
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 28 Sep 92 09:21:59 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <NICHOLS.92Sep27152406@offa.cs.odu.edu>, nichols@offa.cs.odu.edu
(teresa nichols) wrote:
> .................... At an outdoor concert at my alma mater, during the
> afternoon, I and only myself got a bit roughed up by the stage manager of
> this band. He at first wanted my film, I said no, he tried to take it and
> realized I wouldn't give it to him, then forcibly took me out of the
> playing area.

Teresa-

You may choose to do nothing, but it sounds like you have a case of assault
and/or battery.  The fact that the guy was an employee of the band doesn't
give him a right to take the physical action you suggested.  If there was
any basis for his actions, he should have called the campus police to
handle you instead!

If you feel it is warranted, you would do well to hire a lawyer for advice.
 It would help greatly if you had witnesses.

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hyunj@sage4c.its.rpi.edu (John Hyun)
Subject: What's a good flash with a Canon F1 or Canon AE-1?
Keywords: Flash, Canon
Reply-To: hyunj@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:33:42 GMT

What's a good flash with a Canon F1 or Canon AE-1? 
If anyone knows, please respond.

--John
hyunj@rpi.edu
From: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Leica, why so high?
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:22:19 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

>>>I don't think Leicas were the first still cameras to use 35mm movie
>>>film (I think Leica came along 10-20 years after the very first 35mm
>>>cameras).  However, they were among the first high quality expensive
>>>35mm cameras.



>Leica and its associated literature would have you believe that Oskar
>Barnack was the inventor of the 35mm still camera. Or at least that's
>the impression I got reading one of the Leica books.

I've always read that Barnack was the inventor- that his camera was
used first to test for exposures & etc (like an early Polaroid?) for
35mm motion picture film, and then later used for its own sake.

I've never heard of anyone else being responsible.  Barnack was 
active in, what, 1914, so just before the war.  Actual production
didn't follow until after the war.

	Dave

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Next Nikon camera: An AF interchangeable lens rangefinder?
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:39:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <2558@ceylon.gte.com> kbb0@harvey.gte.com (Kevin Burke) writes:
>
>I've been using rangefinder cameras as my primary camera for a while so
>I started thinking about how a Nikon AF rangefinder might affect my
>shooting. I started by examining all the reasons I *do* shoot a
>rangefinder:
>	1) Accuracy of focus of wide-angle lenses. The accuracy of the
>	rangefinder in a late Leica M is constant, independant of focal
>	length and max aperture. My limited understanding of AF is that it
>	*is* dependant on focal length and max aperture.

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by constant accuracy, but
this doesn't sound right to me.  An AF system gives constant accuracy
at the film plane.  

What concerns me is that with an electronic rangefinder I'd never be
really sure it focused on what I wanted it to if the scene was
complicated.  With either a true rangefinder or an SLR I can see for
myself.  

>	2)Greater flexibility in lens design by allowing elements to
>	protrude into the body. As we know, SLR lenses must maintain a certain
>	distance from the film plane.

Right on.


>	3)I like seeing the relative displacement of the rangefinder images
>	when not in focus. I have a good feel for how much to twist the
>	focus ring or I can do my own predictive focus by waiting for
>	the images to line up before snapping the shutter. I don't have a
>	good feel for how much I have to turn the focus ring on my wife's
>	8008 when using the electronic rangefinder. The prediction
>	algorithm's in the Nikon's are probably better than mine though.

Good point about a visible indicator of amount and direction of
misfocus.  Actually, there is no reason an electronic rangefinder
couldn't display this info.  

[[ more stuff deleted ]]

  -- David Jacobson






Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: asadigh@rodan.acs.syr.edu (sadigh)
Subject: Honeywell's rights to its autofocus tech.
Originator: asadigh@rodan.acs.syr.edu
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 16:08:55 EDT


I read the following news in IEEE Spectrum magazine.  Thought it might be
interesting to some of you folks.

	"Aug. 21.  Honeywell Inc., Minneapolis, Minn., said it would receivei
	 $124 million from seven camera makers as part of a settlement 
	 involving rights to its autofocus technology.  The agreement were
	 negotiated separately with Canon, Eastman Kodak, Konica, Kyocerai,
	 Matsushita, Nikon, and Premier Camera Taiwan"

Beejan
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Stieglitz collection
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:29:26 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


H Hecimovic writes:

> If you are interested in Stieglitz and art, I would like to recommend
> you to see paintings from his wife Georgia O'Keeffe. Especially her "100
> flowers" book of paintings.
> I like her very much, it seems that there were an interesting couple.


They were, considering that Stieglitz lived in New York City and in the
southwest.

If you are interested in Stieglitz & O'Keeffe and Adams, look
at the video "Ansel Adams Photographer" where you'll find both O'Keeffe
and Adams reminiscing together.

As a side note, while Adams was first selling his prints in the early
thirties for $10, and Stieglitz, already internationally know, was selling
his for $15, O'Keeffe was a millionaire from her art work.


eugene kowaluk
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: Need Enlarge Lens Recommendation
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 13:34:51 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Sep28.152736.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>, tad@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:

> I am trying to find a 50mm enlarger lens for printing 35mm
> negatives. My budget is limited, but I'm willing to spend enough
> to get something good. I'm considering the Rodenstock APO
> Rodagon, which is $316.00 from B&H. Does anyone have any comments
> or suggestions on this or another lens? I would like something
> that doesn't get too far out of this price range, but still
> manages to be as sharp as possible from center to edge. I would
> like sharpness and resolution to be good enough for a good
> looking 16 x 20, and maybe still decent for my occasional 20 x
> 30. Any and all comments are appreciated...help!

I have never used the APO Rodagon so I can't comment on it. It is said
to be a very good lens, though. I personally use the EL-Nikkor 50mm/2.8N
for my 35mm work. It has done very well for the enlargements up to
40x50 cm (16x20 in) I have done. And it costs a lot less, too.

-- 
------------------------------ END OF MESSAGE ------------------------------
Robert Claeson                Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                         robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                             CEO: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com:dg-smtp
S-164 93 KISTA                     Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
Sweden                             Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22