HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bercov@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (John Bercovitz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: portrait lenses: 35mm-Format.
Date: 2 Sep 1992 23:40:24 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.243.192.10

In article <1992Sep2.124428.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>In article <25961@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, bercov@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov
(John Bercovitz) writes:
>> In article <lakhindr.715366411@bowmore.NSD.3Com.COM> lakhindr@ESD.3Com.COM
>> (Lakhinder Walia) writes:

>>>1. What is generally the range of a portrait lens' focal length..?
>>>   I know 85mm lens is quite suitable for this. How about 105mm or

>> For me, the 85mm fl results in something a little
>> too "intimate" in the way of a portrait.  The 100mm is just right and the
>> longer lenses result in photos which are too removed or distant in the
>> feeling they give.  Maybe it all has to do with personal "bubble space".

>i guess i would tell you to go to the opposite extreme.  i usually take
>portraits with my 135mm lens.  It gives me enough room to play with the subject
>a little without being right in their face, and also allows for tight framing.
>The reference to ``bubble space'' can be the key i think- several of my
>portrait subjects were rather camera shy, and the 135mm allowed me to stay out
>of their personal space, which helps a lot.  Probably the very best option
>would be to get all three lenses?  (we've all got the money, right?)

I see what you mean.  I usually take pictures of people I know pretty well
so it's hard for me to get too close and thereby bother them.  But for the
general subject, often unknown to the photographer, a longer lens would be
good.  When I was referring to bubble space, I meant the bubble space of
the person viewing the photo.  An 85mm lens gives you a feeling that the
subject is right up in your face and consequently makes you uncomfortable.
A 135 (for me) makes me feel like the subject is too far off.  Of course
if you frame _really_ tightly with parts of the face cut off, it ought to
work really well.

John Bercovitz     (JHBercovitz@lbl.gov)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: CANON FAQ
Distribution: usa
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:51:47 GMT

In <1992Aug31.163259.6345@sj.nec.com> yi@tdd.sj.nec.com (Yi Zhang  x2912) writes:

>>>Article 31762 of rec.photo:
>>>From: robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Michael Robinson)
>>>Subject: FAQ and Pentax FAQ
>>>
>>>Could somebody please post me a photo FAQ. (or give me an address etc)
>>>Is there a Pentax FAQ?

>>>Thank you
>>>Michael

>Please post a CANON FAQ too. 

What questions would you like to see in a Canon FAQ?

>Y.Z.

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______________________|
From: cmcdowel@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Charles E. McDowell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Hasselblad/Medium Format Digest.
Date: 31 Aug 92 04:25:09 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

If you would be interested in being added to the mailing list for the
Hasselblad / Medium Format Digest, a semi-moderated digest dedicated to
discussion about medium format equipment and techniques, send your mail
address to:  cmcdowel@ecn.purdue.edu.   Please put your address in the body
of the letter, don't rely on the header.

[ Charles McDowell                   Purdue University - Lafayette, Indiana ]
[ cmcdowel@ecn.purdue.edu            School of Electrical Engineering       ]
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: large format, zone system, hat hair and other silliness
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:11:53 GMT
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA


In article <1992Aug26.203908.29319@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com>,
kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden) writes:

|> Actually, my hat hair comment goes back to an article I posted in a
completely
|> unrelated thread that you must have missed.  In that thread, donl indicated
|> that somebody (Geoff somebody maybe?) once made him buy a hat to use
while doing
|> large format photography.  Apparently donl found the hat not only
stylish, but
|> useful as a lens shade too.  I made the comment that if hats were a
prerequisite
|> for large format that I would probably be scared off since hats give me hat
|> hair, which is the condition after which wearing a hat for an extended time
|> period my hair gets mushed and everybody can tell I had been wearing a hat.
|> While not fatal, I supposed it's not stylish, although I guess there's a
|> tradeoff here, if the hat were just as stylish outdoors as indoors then I
|> could always keep the hat on or maybe switch to a hat that is stylish
indoors.
|> Then of course there's dark cloth hair too, but I suppose a hat could
prevent
|> that.  It's all so confusing.

I don't get it.

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
From: duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: The quality of Nikon "E" lenses?
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:27:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug25.152819.20995@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> dougb@ecs.comm.mot.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.144844.9800@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky) writes:
>
>|> the 75-150 zoom is supposed to be a top-notch lens...much
>|> by accident i'm told.  they command a good price on the
>|> used market.
>
>Well, I've got one, and while it is a nice lens, the mechanics leave
>something to be desired.  It is a one-touch zoom, and the zoom
>control is very loose.  It tends to slide if I point the lens
>up or down.

yeah...my 70-210 behaves similarly...

you might try keeping a wide rubber band around the narrower
barrel which you can stretch over the zoomer part to help fix it
into place.  it's hokey, but it might help make life easier.

duane
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photograping Whales [8008s autofocus problem]
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:00:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Sep3.190031.1188
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <02SEP92.21157849.0014@VM.MPG.MCGILL.CA> CCGM@MUSICM.MCGILL.CA (CCGM000) writes:
>
>   Perhaps also, expecting sharp focus from any lens wide open is
>asking for a lot, particularly with zooms, where corners have been
>cut (I'm sure) in order to reduce weight, retain sufficient speed, etc.
>all at an affordable market price.

I'm not looking for ultra sharp here, just resonable sharpness. My Canon
EF 75-300 is sharper then my 100-300xi is, and the 75-300 isn't really
that sharp either. I want something in the 100-300 range a little sharper
then my EF 75-300, but for my 7xi.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: polycarbonate camera bodies
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:36:29 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Richard A Hyde writes:

>Well, I've seen a lot of theoretical discussion...

We're absolute experts at that here!  :-)  To say nothing of absolute 
speculation, er, excuse me.  Make that "informed extrapolation".  ;-)

>Has anyone ever dropped their polycarbonate camera?  

Yes.  My Canon EOS 650 and 2 Canon EF (polycarbonate body) lenses (the old
35-70 EF and the 24mm f2.8).

> How far?  

From waist level.

> On to what?

Concrete and granite.

>and, of course,..  *what happened* !?

Nothing much.  Well they bounced, but other than that nothing too terrible.
The 35-70 was attached to the 650 at the time that I dropped it and the 
little plastic ring that goes around the very front of the lens was slightly
cracked.  A drop of cyano-acrylate fixed it up.  One corner of the 650 body
was slightly scuffed.  This happened the day that I bought them (naturally ;-)
and I've never noticed a problem.

The 24mm lens was dropped from about 2-3 feet onto a granite slab at Yosemite.
It bounced and rolled down the slab and came to rest in 1/2 inch of water 
(right next to the Merced river.  Phew, that was *close*!).  Apparently there 
was some slight damage to the metal mounting plate as it has felt just slightly
tight when mounting/unmounting ever since.  But it works just fine and 
its images were not degraded at all.

Barry

-- 


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp.       | "Any fool can face a crisis - it's     | 
| bjs@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com           |  this day-to-day living that wears you |
|                                   |  out." - Anton Chekhov                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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.                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: swansond@nextnet.csus.edu (Dennis Swanson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Pushing Kodak Ectapress
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:56:38 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <mac.41@mac@ur.utk.ed> mac@mac@ur.utk.ed (Richard J. McDougald) writes:
>[...]
>	Anyway, you heard me right.  Ektapress 1600 processed normally looks
>as tight as Gold 400 processed normally.  Also, we have used the 1600 to 
>shoot (unfiltered) under tungsten light when we needed the extra speed and
>let our printer correct the color balance in the enlarger with outstanding
>results!   (please send mail or respond in post as to whether you got my
>E Mail...I sent two).

Hmm, very interesting. I haven't forked out the big(ger) bucks for 1600ASA
film yet, but I've always heard that there isn't too much difference in
grain among the 100 to 400 speed range, but after that supposedly things
go downhill fast. Guess I should try some -- costs more, but two "free"
stops ain't nothing to snicker at. Please don't tell me that color
saturation and (perceived) sharpness is also virtually identical, as well
as contrast -- I couldn't handle the regret for not having tried it sooner!
I got one of your email messages, but my email reply rolled over and died
when it saw those two @'s in your address! Oh, one final thought: at what
level of enlargement does, IYO, Ektapress 1600 cease to be a dead ringer for
Gold (Plus) 400?

	Den

-- 
..................................................................
: Dennis M. Swanson : "No matter how long you live, remember that :
: swansond@csus.edu : you will be dead much longer."  Eccl. 11:8b :
:...................:.............................................:
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Since when has programming been free? (was Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:16:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Sep2.161629.10033
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <CMM.0.90.2.715441044.dash@gyda.ifi.uio.no> Dag Asheim <dash@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>
>The point is not really about money, it is about freedom.  It is unfortunate
>that this discusion takes place in gnu.misc.discuss, because this isn't a
>GNU issue (directly), it is a LPF issue.

Nor is it a rec.photo issue, why is it being cross posted to here?

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Which is first camera with TTL meter?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:49:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


   Does anybody know for sure which SLR was the first to incorporate
TTL metering?  

   The first 35mm SLR's were the Russian Sport and the Exakta, the
first 35mm SLRs with prisms were the Italian Rectaflex and the East
German Contax S, and the first ones with instant-return mirror
were the Hungarian Duflex and the Asahiflex.  But I couldn't seem to find
who put in the TTL metering concept so essential today.  

  Also, who was the first to have TTL flash control?  Was it Olympus?



Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow)
Subject: Re: Recommend slide labelling program?
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:49:35 GMT


If therir is enouhght interest, souwould you mind posting all of the MSDOS
slide labeling sorurces. That is, if they are allready on dosisk so that
you do not have to re-key them. Thanks.
-- 
Michael Volow, Psychiatry, Durham VA Med Center, Durham NC 27712
919 286 0411 Ext 6933               mvolo@uncecs.edu
From: serge@mais.hydro.qc.ca (Serge Oligny)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: selenium wash
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:33:46 GMT
Organization: Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Canada

jjc4@po.CWRU.Edu (James J. Campanella) writes:


>Does anyone with more experience in photography development know
>how to treat B&W prints with a selenium wash to get that beautiful
>brownish-reddish tone that I've seen in some museum quality prints?
>I believe that it's selenium treatment. . . am I misremembering?
>How about this as a more general question: are there any good photo
>books on print processing that describe how to do this or similar
>treatments? Thanx. 
>--


The procedure you are refering to is generally called TONING.  Lots of
toners are available on the market.  Usually, the users of toning product
are after one of the two following effects:

    a) get archival characteristics for their prints,
    b) get a color change in their prints.

A) In the case of archival characteristics, I use Kodak Selenium Toner
   diluted 1:20.  I pour the solution in a tray and simply agitate each
   print for 6 minutes.  I then wash them for 15-20 minutes in running
   water (I use RC papers).  This procedure gives the prints a very slight
   purple cast and deepens the blacks a bit.  The archival characteristics
   come from the fact that the selenium toner transform the developped
   silver into a chemicaly more stable compound (maybe someone else could
   describe this more accuratly).  If I know in advance that I am going to
   tone a print, I will usually make it a tad lighter (approx. 5% less
   exposure than usual) to account for the loss of shadow details once
   tone.

B) If one is after color change, the toner is usually used in a more
   concentrated form.  The basic process is the same (i.e. agitate the print
   in a bath of toner solution and then washing it).  Time in the solution
   , toner dilution and paper type are the 3 main variable wich control the
   process.  A bit of experimentation will usually lead to satisfying 
   results.  One the topic of paper type, it must be noted that all paper
   do not react the same to toner action.  A small article in a recent
   Pop. Photo issue (july '92 I think) covers the subject:  the author
   presents the results of his tests on a nice matrix of the type "Paper
   brand vs. toner".  Each cell in the matrix describe the resulting paper
   reaction to the toner in term of visual change in the image.

   On the topic of color change, I am aware of the following basic possible
   color changes:

       . Sephia ("old image brown"),
       . Brown,
       . Red,
       . Blue/Green (depending of time immersed in toner).

Hope this help...

Serge Oligny
-----
>-- 
--
______________________________________________________________________________
                                      This is a personal opinion that have
serge @mais.hydro.qc.ca               nothing to do with my employer.
______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wally@boi.hp.com (Wally Overton)
Subject: Re: Suggest a pair of binoculars?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:09:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

I am using a pair of Jason Auto-focus binoculars which I like a lot.
At first I thought they were a gimmic, but they are of high quality and
work.  It seems traditional binos expect the eye to focus at infinity, then
you adjust the optics for the specific range.  The Jasons use the focusing
capability of the eye to do the job, and you can't tell, but it's sharp
for what you are looking at.  I think the eye makes a better optical "servo"
then a finger adjust, and am really sold.  The model I have is the bright
yellow floatable with a soft padded case.  Try some.

The do have one down side in that they won't allow focusing below about
35 feet.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tjl@cbnews.cb.att.com (timothy.j.lipetz)
Subject: T stops (was: Designing fast non-50mm lenses)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:37:15 GMT

In article <TSOS.69.714835291@uni-duesseldorf.de> TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
>...
>For a 200/1.4, however, you would need at least 200/1.4=140mm front
>element diameter. Actually a bit more because "f/1.4" should not 
>just reflect the geometric properties but also account for the loss
>of light due to reflection and absorption within the lens. (If you
>select an aperture of 1.4, the amount of light reaching the film plane
>should be independent of lens design, number of groups/elements etc.)
>

Although we might wish this were true, and certainly most manufacturers
are content to let the public believe this,  the truth is that f numbers
are ONLY defined by the geometric ratio of
the focal_length/aperture_diameter.  What you are describing, and what
most people think they are using when they calculate exposures, are the
T numbers (Transmissions numbers).  These can be thought of as
'effective f numbers' which consider light loss through the lens.

Now with simple lenses and modern multicoating, the difference between
the T number and f number hardly matters.  The last time I encountered
T numbers was when I studied film making in the 70's, and was told
that for many complex movie camera zoom lenses the difference was 
significant and that many lenses were calibrated (by the user) in
both scales.

You still use the f number for depth of field calculations, but the
T number for exposure. (Think about it, you'll see why.)

The only place I can think of where the difference still matters is
with mirror lenses.  The combination of the 'black hole' of the 
secondary mirror with the usual light loss can probably exceed the
one third stop difference generally needed for 'accurate' exposure.
However, the depth of field is still calculated on the mirror
diameter.

Tim Lipetz
tjl@cbzoo.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: belinfan@cs.utwente.nl (Axel Belinfante)
Subject: Re: Pentax Z-1 questions
Organization: Univ. of Twente, Dept. Informatics, Tele Informatics group
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:47:10 GMT

In article <robinson.27@odie.ee.wits.ac.za>, robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Michael Robinson) writes:

|> First, is the US Pentax PZ-1 model the same as everybody elses' Pentax Z-1 
|> model?

I don't know. Anybody?

|>  Second, does the Z-1 have second curtain sync. capabilities

It has second curtain sync. capabilities, if the flash supports them.
The switch for 1st or 2nd curtain sync is on the flash, it
is not on the camera. The flashes that Pentax offers for the Z1 have it.
Also the adaptor for the SCA-300 system for the Z1 contains such a switch.
(see below for something more on the SCA-300 system)

|> and can one interchange the screens?

The screens can be interchanged, i don't know whether you can do it your-
self, or whether only a Pentax service center can do it for you.
Nor do i know which screens are available (i think i read something of
3 or 4 screens being available).

|> 
|> Thank you
|> Michael Robinson
|> (please also post to me personally at Robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za)


Something about the SCA-300 system:

The SCA-300 system is used by a number of independent flash
producers (METZ, OSRAM, CULLMAN and maybe others) to provide (TTL)
compatibility with the different camera's. The idea is that you buy
a 'generic' flash, and a plug-in (interfacing) module that provides
the interface with the camera. This module is fysically the (very, very)
bottom part of the flash, with the contacts that plug into the hotshoe.
For another (brand of) camera you (may) need to buy another interfacing
module, not a whole new flash.
The combination 'generic' flash + specific interfacing module
offers usually more or less the same functionality as a flash
produced by the camera manufacturer (probably with the exception of
some more advanced/more specific features)(as far as i know).

Also, (according to the documentation) the system offers the possibility
to connect multiple SCA-300 systems flashes to one interfacing module,
such that they all are (TTL) controlled by the camera.
(this i never tried myself, although i have been playing with the idea)

Hope this helps,
Axel.
-- 
<Axel.Belinfante@cs.utwente.nl>   tel. +31 53 893774   fax. +31 53 333815
     University of Twente, Tele-Informatics & Open Systems Group
       P.O. Box 217    NL-7500 AE Enschede      The Netherlands
     "ili ne sciis ke estas neebla do ili simple faris" -- Loesje
From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Help - need cheap big slide sorter
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:23:21 GMT
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
In-reply-to: robertw@informix.com's message of 1 Sep 92 17:24:50 GMT


I think the best cheap light boxes are Acculights.  You can get one
that is 1x2 feet for about $130 (47th St. Photo is where I got mine!)
and the 1x4 ft. one is only about $20 more.  This sounds like a lot,
but is 1/3 the price/(square inch) of the prestige brands.

I've used dozens of home-made light boxes and they are all pretty much
worthless.  First of all, you have to get the right MacBeth or GE
Chroma 5000 (I think) light bulbs.  They are expensive and hard to
find.  Secondly, I've never seen a home-made box that had either
sufficient uniformity or correct (according to Kodak) intensity.

Philip Greenspun
MIT Department of EE
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Developing your own motion picture film. Morse processor.
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:51:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.162133.18471@cis.ohio-state.edu>, fontana@cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Fontana) writes:
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of experimenting in 16mm by buying outdated b/w and
> Ektachrome film at the local photo exchange and processing it myself.
> (I have no problems hand processing normal B/W and E-6 film)
> I've found a daylight tank for this purpose, which allows processing
> of up to 100' of 8, 16, and 35mm movie film.  It's basically
> two spools in an oval box with cranks protruding through the top and
> light trap openings for the chemistry.
> 

Sounds like a Morse Processor, beloved of the US Army Air Force et al.
You load it in the dark onto one spool ( A ) and fasten the end onto B. You
then lower B into the developer or better, a pre bath and wind the film from
A to B. Do I have to say "in the dark"? :-) When its all on, close it up, and
go from B to A, A to B.... with the lights on. When time is up, COMPLETE the
current pass, then go to the next solution... Start timing from memory when
you start the first xfer in the new soln, not from the end of the prev step
as in normal processing. Drying was done in an ether/alchohol bath and warm
forced air from memory.

The place to look/ask is the aero-photo trade. They are great for huge amounts
of film in a small space. ( Imagine handeling 250' of 11" film in a tent/small
dark-room with conventional gear! ) Also for processing uniformity. The inter-
mittent exposure to the fresh solution, and layer to layer trapping gives a
divided developer type effect.

That reminds me, you MUST have an even number of passes for each processing
step.

Seems like time to Test, test, test...

have fun

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo