HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: briang@atlastele.com (Brian Godfrey)
Subject: Re: Quick contact sheet proofer
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:53:30 GMT

In article <PHR.92Dec18182250@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>I use Vue-all sleeves.  They work just fine, except you get 7x5 = 35 frames
>on an 8x10 sheet instead of getting all 36.

   Surely you mean all 37.5 frames.  :-)

-- 
--Brian M. Godfrey
  atlastele.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Disc Cameras
Date: 31 Dec 92 10:47:21 GMT

In <1992Dec30.181543.23429@vestek.com> don@vestek.com (Don Labutay) writes:

>Whatever happened to the disc cameras that kodak first introduced a few
>years ago.  I don't see them being sold anymore.  I had one of their first
>models and the picture quality wasn't that good. But, I was thinking a 
>few years more, they would have improved it, maybe a 35mm disc with autofocus.
>But it looks like they didn't. What happened?

The quality of disc cameras wasn't that good because of the tiny
negatives.  Now that 35mm P&S cameras have become smaller, have
autofocus, built-in flash, power loading, winding, and rewinding, it
really doesn't make sense to support disc cameras.

Indeed, there are plans underway to standardize a smaller 35mm film
cassette with thin-base film so that smaller P&S cameras can be made.
So, the pocket-sized P&S wonders of today will get even smaller!  (And
the possibility for 72 exposures in the current cassette looms...
Gads.  Bulk backs might even become extinct!)

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|"The Nikon lens owners are more gratingly smug, while the     |
| - | --|__ | Canon lens owners are more verbally abusive." - Tony Arnerich|
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bosak@netcom.com (Jon Bosak)
Subject: Fluorescent safelights (was: constructing small darkrooms)
Organization: Netcom, a Commercial Internet Service in San Jose
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:16:49 GMT


Jeff Gehlhaar (jbg@qualcom.qualcomm.com) writes:

JG> I'm told nothing like this exists, but it would be handy
JG> to have a florescent tube shaped safe-light.

Regular photo stores (and most photographers) don't know this, but
fluorescent safelights are quite common in process darkrooms -- the
kind that photolithographers use -- and they are every bit as handy as
you imagine them to be.  Get in touch with a graphic arts supply house
(through the yellow pages in a city, or through your local job printer
if you live in the country) and order a 48-inch ruby safelight sleeve.
Get a standard single-tube 48-inch fluorescent shop fixture from your
neighborhood discount hardware store, slip the ruby sleeve over the
tube, and presto! you have what in my opinion is the best safelight
you can get for a b&w darkroom.  It gives *lots* of light, it's
completely safe for bromide paper, and it does double duty as a
safelight for processing ortho film (which is, of course, what it was
designed for).

Just one caution -- DON'T load ordinary camera film into tanks or
cartridges right after turning off the safelight.  Fluorescent tubes
continue to glow faintly for several minutes after power is cut off.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 Jon Bosak  Sunnyvale, California : bosak@netcom.com  jb@sjb.novell.com
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Date: 25 Dec 92 05:58:53 GMT

In <PHR.92Dec24210811@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:

>In article <BzssK3.Kp6@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:

>      Why do you want a split or microprism screen?  First off, with
>   AF, you don't need focusing aid.  

>You need a focusing aid if you are using a manual focus lens.
>(Unless, of course, you're using one of those nasty non-Nikon AF cameras
>that made you throw away your manual focus lens collection).

Well, it appears some are throwing away their Nikon *AF* lenses to get
Canon EF lenses (and bodies to boot), so what's your point?  :-)

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: nigel@kathunk.phaedrav.on.ca (Nigel M Burnett)
Subject: Re: Xmas displays
Organization: as little as possible
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:46:51 GMT

Mike Coren (mikec@spider.co.uk) wrote:
: PS - I'm convinced that Edinburgh, Scotland, is the tacky Christmas light
:      capital of the world.  Some of the places around here are awful!
:      The big posh 5-star Caledonian Hotel is the worst!

Ha! - you haven't been to Singapore then?

N.
-- 
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of
a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.  His own
good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.   John Stuart Mill

Nigel Burnett: 78 Normandy Blvd, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4L 3K3 416-690-1834
Send e-mail to nigel@kathunk.phaedrav.on.ca or try uunet.ca!kink!kathunk!nigel
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: For Sale: Nikons & accessories
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:45:55 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com


* Nikon F3HP, absolutely mint, like new, in box:   $625

* Nikon F3HP, mint minus, no brassing, almost like new, in box:  $575

* Nikon SB16A, dedicated flash for F3, mint minus;	
   and  Nikon F3 AS adapter, with ISO hot shoe:	    $150 for both. 

* Nikon F, chrome, with non-meter prism finder, 1967 model.  Used, average
	condition, everything works, shutter speeds are dead on- this is
	the proverbial "brick" all-manual model:	$175 


	Dave Bernard,  (216) 328-5312
From: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Velvia Reciprocity Info?
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:21:39 GMT
Reply-To: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Alvin Chia-Hua Shih writes:

(in response to a request for reciprocity characteristics for Fuji
Velvia and 50):

>
>Fujichrome Velvia RVP:
>
>Exposure and Colour Balance Corrections for Reciprocity Failures:
>
>+---------------+-------------+------+------+------+-------+-----------------+
>|Time (sec.)    | 1/4000 to 1 |  4   |  8   |  16  |  32   |       64        |
>|===============|=============|======|======|======|=======|=================|
>|Filters        |    None     |  5M  | 7.5M | 10M  | 12.5M | Not Recommended |
>|---------------|-------------|------|------|------|-------|-----------------|
>|Exposure Comp. |    None     | +1/3 | +1/2 | +2/3 |  +1   | Not Recommended |
>+---------------+-------------+------+------+------+-------+-----------------+

According to the Fuji people, reciprocity characteristics are the same for
Fuji 50D.  I assume that 50 would behave similarly to 50D but don't know
so for a fact.

I've never let the "Not Recommended" stop me.  I've successfully made exposures
as long as 6 minutes on Velvia using a factor of +2 stops (meter read 1.5 
minutes so I exposed for 6).  I used 15M, the maximum magenta filtration I had 
with me.  Color showed a definite green shift - I think that another 7.5-10M 
would have been good.  It worked out fine as the transparency was a 4x5 
intended solely as an original for printing and it was easy to correct the 
color shift.

In addition, I've seen some stunning pictures made in slot canyons where
the exposures were in the neighborhood of 30 *minutes* on Velvia with no
color correcting filtration used (this photographer likes to keep things
simple).  I don't know what the original transparencies looked like - pretty 
green I assume - but the photographer was able to correct them very nicely in 
his printing.

Barry

--


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | "It's much easier to go to exotic places and | 
| bjs@uts.ccc.amdahl.com      |  capture spectacular scenes than to take a   |
|                             |  spectacular picture of a really boring      |
|                             |  green pepper". - Anthony Tse                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction.  Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions.  Unfortunately, this has been  |
| said of me as well. (I.e.  My statments are mine, not Amdahl's.)           |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lds@ccrl.nj.nec.com (Duan-Shin Lee)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Organization: C&C Research Labs, NEC USA, Princeton, N.J.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 16:47:53 GMT

>>>>What you want is a *real* focusing screen with a split prism or microprism
>>>Yup.  I wonder where the third-party screens are for F-801s too.
>>Actually, in the deepest, darkest catacombs of Nikon, there is a small
>>set of screens with manual focusing aids for F-801s.  Alas, those
>>screens mess up the exposure system.
 
>A small set of screens with exactly one element :-(  Yes, I agree with you,
>and still wonder where the theird-party screens are.
 
I think the screen with MF aid that you talk about is the microprism screen. 
Can you point out some evidence that this screen messes up the metering
system?  According to the Nikon Handbook published by HP publisher,
there are three screens available to the 8008.  The reason that there
are only three screens available to the 8008 is because the light meter
resides in the viewfinder and the focusing screens will affect the
light meters.  The F3 has much more screens available, because the
meter resides at the bottom of the camera.  The F4 has a lot of
screens available, because there is an adjustment available in the finder
(at least the standard finder).  I suppose that three screens available
to the 8008 should give very close exposure results (at least my 2020 does).

-- 
Duan-Shin Lee
C & C Research Lab, NEC USA
Tel:(609)951-2456
lds@ccrl.nj.nec.com
From: barnick@mesa.Kodak.COM (William M Barnick x73638)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: News on Lithium Rechargeables
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:56:29 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY

In article <1992Dec21.185816.3930@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@ctt.bellcore.com writes:
>Reprint without permission:
>-=-=-=-=-=
>
>                          A LONGER-LASTING BATTERY
>                         USA Today:Washington-DC
>                                 12/17/92
>                                   P B1
>
>Bellcore has developed a longer-lasting battery that can be used to power 
>anything from a notebook computer to an electric car. The new AA-size 
>lithium battery is rechargeable and can last three times longer than 
>common batteries. According to Bellcore, local telephone companies can use 
>the batteries for emergency backup during power outages. 
>-=-=-=-=-=
>
>Obviously, it can be used for cameras too.
>
>Jason Chen

Does anyone have any further info on RECHARGEABLE lithium batteries ???
I have seen this mentioned several times now.  I had always heard that it
was (explosively) too dangerous to recharge lithium batteries.  Is this
some type of special charger ???   Also what is the price of such a battery?

Any way please email me if you have any info,  I don't read this group as
much as I would like to.

Thankx ...
WMB   barnick@kodak.com


--
***  William M Barnick ** Eastman Kodak ** barnick@Kodak.COM ******************
***  Electronic Imaging Platform Center * Color Scanning Systems Lab          *
***  B/65-2 D/733 mc01804   Rochester NY   14650-1804                         *
**************************** (716) 477-3638 ***********************************
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: davek@vax2.concordia.ca (DAVID KURZMAN)
Subject: IBM programs for manipulating photgraphs
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Concordia University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:08:00 GMT

Hi there,

I am looking for an IBM program which will allow me to manipulatethe images 
of photos which I have scanned into a scanner.  Has anyone done this sort 
of thing?  Can anybody reccomend a good program that will allow me to do 
this? 

Sorry if this is the wring list for t6his kind of question.  please e-mail

David Kurzman
davek@vax2.concordia.ca 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: 49mm versus 52mm
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:47:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.161824.1@ducvax.auburn.edu> swanger@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:


   Pentax and Nikon use different diameters (widths?) for their 50mm lenses.  
   Pentax uses 49mm, Nikon uses 52mm.  Does the width affect picture quality?
   Is one better than the other, or does neither make any difference?

It shouldn't make any difference to the optical quality of the glass.
However, using 49mm with wide angle lenses is more likely to cause
vignetting (some Olympus lenses have this problem slightly; don't know
about Pentax).  52mm gives the designer a little more room to use
bigger elements etc.  This allowed Nikon to use 52mm for quite a lot
of lenses including a 20mm, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 (I think), 105/2.5,
55/3.5 and 2.8 micro, 80-200/4.5 zoom, etc.  This was really nice
because you could have all these lenses and just one set of filters.
I suspect that some of these could not have been managed with 49mm.
However, Nikon more recently seems to have gone to 62mm for new AF
lenses including 60/2.8, 85/1.8, etc.

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis)
Subject: Canon FD 24-35 & 20-35 (was Canon 10s Vs Nikon...)
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:59:55 GMT

In <BzzIu0.5MB@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.131003.28563@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>>Well, looking at my F1N brochure, I see an FD 20-35/3.5L and an FD
>>28-55/3.5-4.5.  I don't see anything like an FD 24-35.  So go for it! :-)

>	Well, I had a FD 24-35L in my hand twice.  Never seen a FD 20-35L.
>I think there is a missprint somewhere.

As I understand, both lenses exist.  The FD 24-35/3.5 is older and was
discontinued in favor of the FD 20-35/3.5.  However, I have no idea
when the newer version came about.
--
Al Goldis           alan-goldis@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lswab@x400gate.bnr.ca (Lyndon Swab)
Subject: Stores in Orlando?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.,
Distribution: rec
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:11:28 GMT

[ed.] Posted for a friend...

I am going to Orlando Florida on a trip. Do you know
of any good camera/electronics stores in the city?
Which ones have the best prices or selection?
Which are ones to avoid?

Thanks,

Mark

--
Lyndon Swab     lswab@bnr.ca, (613) 763-7165, ESN 393-7165
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 29 Dec 1992 20:32:12 EST
From: Spartacus/CUNY LC NY <LENBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photo CD
 <1992Dec29.154449.12480@stsci.edu> <1992Dec29.231754.21328@siemens.com>

In article <1992Dec29.231754.21328@siemens.com>, aad@siemens.com (Anthony Datri)
says:
>
>>Just imagine, if Kodak floods the market with Photo-CD players and
>>other hardware
>
>Could this been said to have been done with 8-track audio cartridges?  Seen
>a player for one of them lately?

Look in Garage Sales.  When you find one have your tapes dubbed to standard
audio cassettes.   I've seen one a few months ago for $15.
Or even better yet check your local music store and see if
its already been dubbed professionally on CD.  Nuff said

>
>>TVs.  And it's not really that hard to find something on which to play
>>78 RPM records, is it?
>
>I guess that depends if you care what happens to them in the process.  Even
>ten years ago very few turntable makers did 78.  Note that I mean "turntable",
>not "$29.99 BSR changer with a cardboard cartridge".
>--
>
>======================================================================8--<
-------
                                                       .  .  .  .   .  . . .
------------------------------+ All The Best in '93,. .  .  . .  *  . . .   .
Reply To:                     |                       . . .  .  /o . . .  . .
     I18BC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    | Edward Galarza,          .  .  / o   .   .
     I18BC@CunyVM.BitNet      | Brooklyn College Of The     . /o  o    .   .
     IRC: Spartacus           | City University Of New York  /o  o o    .  .
------------------------------+ "Que viva el OS/2!"   __________| |__________
                                                      #######################
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
Subject: Re: How do they know?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:46:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.115922.3218@sequent.com>, blue@sequent.com (Gil Delavous) writes:
> In article <1992Dec22.054431.23588@ultb.isc.rit.edu> fjcppr@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
> >In the most recent Del's ad in Shutterbug, Tony "who knows Leica" says
> >that you can stand on a Leica without damaging it. Should I believe
> >that Tony or someone he knows has actually done that? Has anyone
> >out there in Rec.photo every stood on any camera? If so, please 
> >include your weight in your reply. Also, did you stand on the camera
> >with its bottom or its back to the ground? 
> 
> Ah Ah Ah! I like this one!!!
> Seriously now, I always thought that cameras were made to take pictures.
> Standing on it doesn't even mean that its robust; you can stand on a glass
> but if you let it fall on the ground see what happen. Under certain 
> circumstance I'm also pretty sure that I could stand on my all-plastic EOS A2 
> without damaging it.
> 
> Next year, advertise will say: "With the new CaKon F-EOS-0.5 you can play 
> football or dig the ground without damaging it. The only problem is that it
> can't take pictures anymore" :-) :-) :-)

  Gil is perfectly correct that (i) cameras are not for standing on and
(ii) even if you can stand on it, this doesn't mean it's robust.  So the
ad is pretty stupid from two points of view.  The robustness of Leicas is 
demonstrated not by standing on them, but by the way they stand up in 
rough situations, and also over a long period of time.

  Just for the record, though, the best robustness story I have seen so far 
was about a guy who was shooting publicity photos for the US Air Force.  The 
plane he was in got into trouble, he and the pilot had to punch out at over 
30,000 feet, and he "dropped" his R4.  When they eventually found it on the 
desert floor, he picked it up, and the shutter and mirror operated normally
(no glass was left intact, of course).  I think Leica even repaired it under 
their usual policy. And if they hadn't had such a policy, no doubt they would
have repaired it anyway, just for the publicity value.
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Canon Elan - leave leader out?
Date: 29 Dec 92 02:31:03 GMT

In <1992Dec28.175058.1@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu> dwing@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu (Dan Wing) writes:

>I've heard of some Nikon 8008s owners sending their cameras back to Nikon to
>get them reprogrammed to have the film leader left out when the film is
>rewound.

>Is this possible with the Canon Elan?

Most of the higher-end EOS bodies activate it through a custom function.
The Elan doesn't have it.  Give Canon a call, but I doubt they'll do
anything for you.

I suggest you find a film-leader retrieval tool.

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: madler@vssad.enet.dec.com (Michael C. Adler)
Subject: For Sale:  Nikkor enlarger lenses
Reply-To: madler@vssad.enet.dec.com (Michael C. Adler)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:07:23 GMT


Nikkor enlarger lenses for sale:

   50mm f/4   (10),boxed                   $50

   50mm f/2.8 (9),c/retaining ring         $60

Both lenses are the older style without internal illumination of f stop.

-Michael
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: "Signature Color" film -- what's the story?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 10:01:16 GMT

malu@imhps.im.se (Mats Luthman SYSTECON) writes:
: 
:    So, am I right?  Am I going to have to send the film back to them and
:    pay a lot to get it developed?  If not, then what's the scam?  Is this
:    really something for nothing, or is there a catch I'm missing?
: 
:    Thanks for any answers you can give.
: 
: 
: There need not be anything strange with this. They are giving away the
: film to get people to try it. It's simply a form av advertising: lots
: of people will try it because it is free. Getting a new product out on
: the market costs a lot of money, and this is one way of doing it.

Nope. They are just trying to make a mediocre deal sound spectacular.
I am sure they are doing the same thing as Seattle Film Works - selling
movie film ends.

: I don't say that neither a) nor b) applies; but they COULD actually
: think that the film is NOT better than other films, but that people
: will buy it anyway, just because they've heard its name. There are
: lots of examples of products that are sold with such market
: strategies.

I am sure that they KNOW the film is not any better than consumer films.
If it were possible to produce such film, the film manufacturers would
have it on the consumer market. Therefore - this "wonder" film is not
so wonderful.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.photo

lakhindr@ESD.3Com.COM (Lakhinder Walia) writes:

> This lens has large movements. And that changes the effective F stop
> value as you go from Infinity to very close-distance.
> This change shows up in 8008s' window.

> I was wondering how does it show up in F3, if this lens is connected to it.

The view gets darker, to which the light meter responds.

> I dont think F3 "talks" to its lens like 8008s ...! I dont know of any
> other way of finding about the effective value of F stop except asking the
> lens itself.. 

The only thing that the lens tells the F3 is how far down from wide
open the aperture will be during the exposure.  You'd have to use the
math to find the effective aperture.

> My question is : is F3HP fully compatible with this lens..? 

No.  However, this lens is fully compatible with the F3.