HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Robert.Church@p27.f319.n105.z1.therose.pdx.com (Robert Church)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Which Camera to buy?
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:51:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: therose.711800287.F00009

WSC> I am planning of buying a SLR camera and would like to know
WSC> which of the following model is best in this group in terms
WSC> of value and performance.

WSC>   Canon Elan

Many nice features.  Of your choices, this would be _my_ #2.  Maybe different
for you.

WSC>   Minolta Maxxum 5xi

Too many "gimmicky" features.  Power zoom is just stupid.  #3

WSC>   Pentax PZ-10

Same stupid features as 5xi, plus a few.  Since when have cameras composed the
picture?  #4

WSC>   Nikon N6006

Not as many gadgets as any of the others, but you gotta' love Nikon.  Their
optics are very good quality and their cameras are solid.  I own a N2020 and
love it.  #1

    -Rob
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: How can I detect that my fixer is running out?
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:46:47
Organization: CSUA/UCB
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jack@cwi.nl's message of 28 Jul 92 15:47:22 GMT

Edwal sells a fixer-testing chemical.  You put a drop of it in your
fixer and if it turns cloudy your fixer is exhausted.  Photo stores
carrying darkroom stuff should have this chemical.  I've forgotten
what it's called.  It comes in a small squeeze bottle that looks
like lens cleaning fluid.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sfleisch@convex.com (Steve Fleischman)
Subject: Re: EOS zoom lens recommendations
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:54:25 GMT
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.

Concerning the 20-35mm zoom:

The sigma has a permanent metal lens hood (actually "fins"). They prevent
the user of filter holders like Cokin's.  Also the filter size for sigma
is 77mm versus 72 for the Tokina.  That means that filters for the
sigma lens are more expensive and slightly harder to find.  On the
other hand,  I wonder about vignetting with the 72mm filter size.
I have the sigma 21-35 and have seen vignetting with the polarizing
filter.


Stephen Fleischman
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: ENLARGING 35mm/Med.format/other
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:56:49 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <13209@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
> In article 7152@stsci.edu, levay@stsci.edu (Zoltan Levay) writes:
> >Nevertheless, I would like to dispell the currently fashionable notion
> >that it is *impossible* to make enlargements from small-format images.
> >As evidence, I suggest the photographs and writings of one Galen
> >Rowell, who uses exclusively 35mm (as far as I know).  I have seen
> >enlargements of Rowell's pictures that were at least 20x30 inches (I
> >know that's not big by some standards) that I would consider much
> >better than acceptable.  Film format *by itself* is not the only factor
> >in achieving acceptable prints.
> 
> 	Juan Galen Rowell... isn't that the guy who does the 
> 	designer camera bags? :-) In any event, enlargements from
> 	35mm are often made using internegatives of a size larger
> 	than 35mm... as the muscle car afficionadoes say, there's
> 	no substitute for cubic (or in this case, square) inches.

I just can't see how a duplicate of a small slide onto a larger negative
can give you less grain and higher sharpness (if that's what you mean).
There's always some loss with dupes. I've actually had a lab make a
9x12cm interneg from a Velvia slide. I then made prints directly from
the slide onto Fujichrome R34 reversal paper and from the interneg on
Fujicolor Super FA Type II RA-4 negative paper. The fujichrome print
was noticeable sharper but the interneg print had somewhat lower contrast.
I decided that the added cost of interneg's didn't justify the results
when compared to good, modern reversal papers.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: russell@Apple.COM (Russell Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: E-6 with NO Jobo (Was: E-6 in Jobo)
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:39:37 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

One of the reasons for the tight temperature tolerance is to maintain
a safety factor. The film manufacturing, your camera's metering and
exposure of the film, the manufacture of the processing chemicals,
and the developing process all have certain tolerances. Multiple
random variations will cancel each other out -- most of the time.
One of the reasons for tight tolerances is so that if the variations
happen to be mostly in one direction -- darker, redder, or whatever --
the end result will still be acceptable. Given perfection in all the
other variables, you might be able to afford 2 or 3 times the slop
in first developer temperature control while maintaining acceptable
results. So in a sense, the first thing that goes is your safety
margin. Whether your results are still OK will depend partly on the
errors in other stages of the photographic process. 

It's harder to get or specify exact results when
you let the temperature drift from hotter to cooler during processing,
but the technique is often used with good results. 
-- 
Russell Williams
Not speaking for Apple Computer
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikkor 180mm f2.8
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John)
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:10:54 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: msus

in 12323 john@makesys.com (John Turman) asks (in part):
[regarding Nikkor 180 f2.8 lens]
>My main questions are, has anyone on the net used one of these
>babies for portraiture? If so were you impressed with the results?
>Would you reccommend this lense as a primary portrait lense?

I've been using the lens since it was first made for the SLR in 71 or so
(and used the rangefinder version before that) and can say:

It is adequately sharp, focuses easily and very quickly and
it is not a portrait lens unless you like to flatten your
subject's features. Simple perspective metrics tell us that,
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Summary: Not _primary_ source of income
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:31:23 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul24.041623.15860@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:

>The key word is *primary* source of income.  I work full
>time for Pacific Bell and I occassionaly shoot weddings,
>retirements and other events.  I recently sold my first
>photograph as opposed to selling my services and I consider
>myself an advanced amateur, NOT a pro.  My income from
>my photographic services do not comprise a majority of my
>income.

No, it isn't.  If that were the criterion, professional writers would
be almost nonexistent (except for journalists).
About 1/3 of my income is from writing and I'm _definitely_ a professional
writer (just ask the IRS!). 

The criterion used by various governmental agencies is that an activity
is a business if it makes money or has a reasonable expectation and intent
of doing so.
-- 
==========================================================================
Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:27:42 GMT

In article <3116@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.215223.29824@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
> 
> 	So, how about privide me with a step by step on how you would
> overide the AE and auto-DX in your favorite AF/AE camera.  The reason
> I bought up the auto-DX is because a friend of mine is taking
> a photography class and they needed some tungsten balanced film,
> since I just happen to have a 100' roll, I figure I can sell her and
> her classmates some film for a low low price and maybe I can reclaim
> some space in my fridge.  The bottom line is, they can't use bulk
> loaded film because not a single one of them know how to overide
> their camera.
> 
Pity you didn't mention what camera SHE has, the answers might be more use to
you then... On a EOS-1 you press 2 buttons together and dial in the speed you
want. Takes all of 2 sec. If I don't want AE, I press one button and set it to
manual or what ever...

Useing AF well takes time to learn ( shock horror.... the five letter word! ).
You MUST be on the ball and know what the camera will do, or you will ace
yourself. I have had a EOS-1 for nearly 12 months, and i'm still not completely
'auto-magic' with it. Oh, and I can switch the lens to manual if I want to as
well.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: denny@tss.com (Denny Page)
Subject: Re: Wooden fields as mantle pieces?
Organization: Teknekron Software System, Inc.
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:39:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.035105.9333@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:

>Well, if they still have that nasty, worthless Wisner lying around
>I'd be glad to take it off their hands...

That was my reaction.

Denny
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rslugg@med.unc.edu (Robert Slugg)
Subject: Re: Nikkor 180mm f2.8
Keywords: opinions
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:51:56 GMT

This months Professional Photographer magazine has an article about Fox
Studios, a wedding firm based in Chicago that has about 110 photographers.
They state that they recommend each photog have a 35, 50, and 85 mm lense
to do a wedding.  While one can use 135 and 180's for wedding pictures, I
think their use would be less common, perhaps only a few shots during the
day, and that is a lot of weight to be carrying around.  I don't even take
my 135 2.8 unless the church has at least a 50 ft aisle, and then I
dedicate it to a body with VPH, and use "pseudo mirror lockup" to control
vibration, as more magnification doesn't get you anything if none of it is
sharp.

Bob
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: print protection
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:04:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23314
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ

In article <1992Jul24.135241.6954@sys.sweden.dg.com> robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:

> Anyone knows who's selling their stuff in Sweden or in other parts of Europe?
> The only L.I. product I've seen here is their acid-free mounting tape (I
> use it to mount prints when I frame them -- great stuff).

Light Impressions will ship directly to Europe.  They will send things
by the least expensive insured air service (actual shipping cost will be
charged to your credit card) or ocean freight collect (if the items are
too large to ship by air).  Taxes and duties are the responsibility of
the recipient.  Include your phone number with the order.

You can pay for the order by Mastercard/Visa [Eurocard] or American Express.
To order:

	Telephone:	+1 716 271 8960
	Fax:		+1 716 442 7318
	Mail:		Light Impressions
			439 Monroe Avenue
			PO Box 940
			Rochester NY 14603-0940
			USA

The (voice) phone number above is actually their number for technical
assistance; the other numbers in their catalog are toll-free numbers that
can only be called from within the US.  They say their phone is staffed
from 9 AM to 5 PM Eastern time, which is 1500-2300 in Sweden.  You can
probably send them Fax orders at any time.

I imagine the easiest way to proceed is to write them a letter and ask
for a catalog.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Robert Groom)
Subject: Re: Summary of Canon EOS 10s vs Elan vs Pentax PZ1 vs Nikon 8008s
Organization: Labtam Australia Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:03:54 GMT

A "We Were Wrong" correction to the previous post...

farkas@wrl.dec.com (Keith Farkas) writes:

>Robert Groom wrote:

>  I recently purchased the PZ1 myself and have been very pleased with it.  I
>  previously had a Pentax ME which I got many years ago, and got good use out
>  of it.  I have been very impressed with the PZ1 and the Pentax Functions
>  really do add to your flexibility.  I'm not familiar with the other cameras
>  you mentioned so I can't help you there.

I did NOT write this.  I do NOT have a PZ1.  One of the other five respondants
to Keith's original post must have written the above paragraph.  I wrote:

! "A good friend of mine has just bought a Z1 (=PZ1) and my first
! impression is that it's much lighter and more "plasticky" than I would
! have expected for a camera aimed at the advanced amateur/"pro" market.
! My EF28-80L USM lens alone weighs more than her Z1 and 35-70 lens
! combined! :-)"

So what camera *do* I have?  See my .sig below :-)

-- 
Robert Q. Groom                            "My other computer is an EOS-1"
robert@labtam.oz.au
Labtam Australia Pty Ltd         phone: +61-3-587-1444 fax: +61-3-580-5581
From: feltman@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Robert Feltman)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:10:33 GMT
Subject: Re: cold light stabilizer, sources of ?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

 Zone VI is a company devoted to B&W. They sell stabilizers and
a bunch of other neat toys. I bought a compensating timer from them
that measures the output of (any) light source and get repeatability
that I thought previously impossible.

They run ads in most photo mags. If you cannot find them, get back to me
and I will retrieve their address from home.

Bob   
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: 430ez vs Metz 45
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:30:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.114927.14198@sys.sweden.dg.com>, robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:
...
>                             The guide number given above is in feet. The
> guide number in meters is up to 43 (that's where the model number comes
> from) at the 80mm setting.

Note that the Metzen spud mashers have Gns of 45 and 60. The 430 is an impressive
package next to a Metz 45. Explains where that AAs go too.. 

~Paul

From: Robert.Church@p27.f319.n105.z1.therose.pdx.com (Robert Church)
Sender: postmaster@therose.pdx.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Panning...
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:42:46 -0700

RV> I have EOS Rebel in which the mirror lifts up during exposure. So I guess
RV> panning is out of question. Has anybody tried it with a similar camera ?

Not at all out of the question.  All SLR cameras have mirrors which lift up
except for the EOS RT.  It's not all that difficult.  You simply follow the
subject with the camera, and when it gets to where you want to take the shot,
press the shutter release button and continue the motion smoothly.

    -Rob

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pmt@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Tromovitch Philip)
Subject: scratched negatives
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:26:43 GMT

I have some color negatives that I want to make 8"x10"s of, but the negatives
are scratched.

There is minor scratching on the glossy side, and a deep scratch on
the matt side.

Is there any way to 'repair' the negatives before sending them
off for printing?

Phil
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: gadiraju@infonode.ingr.com (Narm Gadiraju)
Subject: Yashika Electro 35 : need info
Keywords: Yashika, Electro35
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:37:46 GMT

I have a Yashika Electro35, which I havent used much.  I do not have the user
manual, so I do not know what some of the controls/buttons are for.  It is a 35
mm format Bridge camera.  If any of U  has the same camera or knowledeble about
this model, can U please send me a copy of the user manual or some explanation 
of the controls.  

thanks in advance.

Narm Gadiraju
gadiraju@infonode.ingr.com
From: tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: nikon pb-6 and ps-6 for slide duping
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:10:49 GMT
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA

sttay@athena.mit.edu (Stephen T Tay) writes:

> i recently posted an article requesting for advice on the above subject. i just
> have one more question. are the dupes that can be obtained from the above, in
> combination with say a 50mm lens, considered high quality dupes?
> if not, how can we obtain high quality dupes at home, short of going to the pro
> labs?

It depends *entirely* on which 50mm lens you are going to use. The PB6 and
PS6 have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality, as long as they hold
everything together rigidly and keep stray light out.

I would not expect high quality copying from a 50mm f/1.4 lens. A 50mm f/2
stopped down to about f/8 or f/11 will be a little better, and a macro lens
or enlarging lens will be far better. Best yet (but too expensive) would be
an APO process lens, as their only function is copy work at magnifications
near 1:1.

If you want to do 5X to 10X enlargement in the copying, then reversed
wide angle lenses are excellent choices. For general copy work, the 50mm
to 60mm macro lenses are the most useful.

On the other half of your question, I don't expect high quality slide copy
work from commercial labs, unless they specialize in the market (for example
the labs that specialize in AV multi-projector show slides). Choose one at
least in part by how much volume they carry in the work you want them to do.

tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: peter629@Armstrong.EDU (James Peterson)
Subject: FOR SALE: Canon EF 35-105 lens
Organization: Armstrong State College, Savannah, GA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:57:43 GMT


Canon EF 35-105 f4.5-5.6 autofocus lens 99% condition.  Almost new still in box

I'll consider all offers or may trade for a Nikon lens (can work out details)

James Peterson
peter629@Armstrong.EDU
From: ahlvers@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Richelle Ahlvers)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Pentax (repair or replace) question
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:26:08 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


Before my question:
	I've been an amateur photographer (non-seriously) for several years
and am planning to (how do I put this to make it sound grammatically correct?)
become more involved, i.e.; I'm going to be working in the photography 
dept. for the student engineering magazine.  I have quite a bit of darkroom
equipment:  color-enlarger, etc...  
	The camera I've been using is a Pentax KM (a couple of lenses, nice
flash, etc...).  This camera really agrees with me (I generally have a hard
time taking "bad" pictures with it.  I usually get several prints per roll 
worth enlarging, entering in local competitions, etc.. anyway, back to the
story...), but recently my light meter ceased functioning.  Now (finally!)
for my question:  Is it worth getting fixed?  I can't really afford to buy
a more advanced camera (nor do I really want one), but a used body that would
fit my lenses may be an option (price-wise).  What's the difference between
the KM and the K1000 bodies?  If you can't tell so far, I'm not really 
interested in nitpicky details -- just information that'll tell me if I need
to junk (sob!) my trusty camera, and possible replacements for it.  
	I haven't taken the body in for an estimate because my favorite
camera store is in a different town that I haven't been to for a couple of
months.  (Alright, so I'm lazy too!!  :-) )
	Any thoughts, comments, etc... would be greatly appreciated!
Richelle
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jim@n5ial.chi.il.us
Subject: Re: Long lenses
Originator: jim@eddie
Reply-To: jim@n5ial.chi.il.us
Organization: me?  have you seen my desk?  : -)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:32:13 GMT

I wrote:
>> I just bought...a 60mm -- 300mm zoom...this lens just happens to
>> weigh about 1/2 to 2/3 what my 80mm to 200mm weighs.  the lighter weight
>> certainly helps steady the lens, relative to my 200mm.

then....
In article <1992Jul28.182549.14059@col.hp.com> cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best)
writes:

>Just the opposite, in my opinion.  The heavier it is, the steadier
>you can hold it

>I can only imagine the reverse to be true if you shoot with both hands on 
>the camera, with a long lens 'dangling' out in front.  In this case, the
>lower mass of a lighter lens would cause less of a 'swaying' moment.

NOTE:  when reading next paragraph, assume each sentence ends with several
smileys.  :-)

hmmm....let's see:  yes, the lens is fairly long, and is out in front of
the camera.  :-)  ok, that's one.  now, holding the camera:  right hand
on the main camera body and pressing the shutter-release, left hand under
the lens itself (roughly at the center of gravity, I'd say).  yep, both
hands on the camera (hmmm....just thought of something:  I'm assuming you
include the lens as part of the camera, as opposed to strictly considering
the camera body itself...to me, ``the camera'' refers to the system as a
whole, excluding filters, flash if I ever used one, etc).

seriously, though, I do notice a difference, and (although I'd want to look
this up before making any bets on it) I seem to remember reading right out
of one of the Kodak Workshop Series books that the additional weight of the
lens was half the problem.  on the other hand, it could be that I just read
that *INTO* the text, and basically assumed that to be part of the problem.

however, I'd have to say that I very much prefer working with my new
60--300mm than my old 80--200mm....now, if I only had a way to mount my
Cokin filters on it (I know --- get the P-size filter holder, plus the
adapter that lets me use the filters I already have, and I'm off...I just
can't find the adapter and the mount...).

later....
   --jim

\input std_disclaimer                     % 73 DE N5IAL (/9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[...] the plural of `mongoose' ought to be `polygoose'." [Jargon file 2.9.10]

INTERNET:  jim@n5ial.chi.il.us  |  grahj@gagme.chi.il.us  |  j.graham@ieee.org
UUCP:  gagme!n5ial!jim@clout.chi.il.us
AMATEUR RADIO:  n5ial@n9hsi (Chicago.IL.US.Earth)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: moreaux@litsun24.epfl.ch (Michel Moreaux)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: scratched negatives
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:42:14 GMT
	<1992Jul28.013931.11815@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Reply-To: moreaux@litsun.epfl.ch
Distribution: usa
Organization: Laboratoire d'informatique technique
In-reply-to: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu's message of 28 Jul 92 01:39:31 GMT


There is a product from Tetenal (in Europe) that get rid of some scratches.
I used it once 5 years ago when sand in rincing water had scratched BW
negatives. This liquid works very well and removed all the scratches from
the negative. The problem is the solvent (toluene) which is quite dangerous
for your health. I encountered some problem because I made the process in a
close room and the vapors attacked my lungs in such a way that I had some
asthma. A good ventilation solved the problem. The product acts as a varnish
and is called "repolisan". You must be careful to treat your negative in a
dust free room. In fact, this product really makes miracle.

-Michel.


PS : I think Tetenal is a german company. They sell a lot of interesting stuff
     for the lab.