HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tonyp@cs.umr.edu (Tony Phillips)
Subject: The much requested film list
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:22:50 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
Originator: tonyp@mcs213e.cs.umr.edu

I am going to post a ZIP file that contains a text file that contains a chart
of major brand films.  The chart includes common name, manufacturer, speeds,
and abbreviated names.

Hope this helps, folks...


-- 
|  Tony Phillips-  University of Missouri CS Dept.  |  Programming: A noun   |
|                                                   |  meaning 'The Art of   |
|  Reply to:  tonyp@cs.umr.edu                      |  debugging a blank     |
|  Prefered Address:  S102066@UMRVMA.UMR.EDU        |  sheet of paper'       |
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu)
Subject: Re: Pentax PZ10 or Canon Rebel S II???
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:09:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.094446.12281@sactoh0.sac.ca.us> mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John) writes:
>
>  Personally, I prefer the PZ-10. Smaller, metal (as opposed to
>  composite) construction, simpler to use, power (or manual) zoom,
>  with special zoom features, and for the price, you get more with
>  the Pentax over the Canon.

Actually, you get *different* features, not more.

>  The Canon has more adjustability, but that is important ONLY if you
>  plan to use them. Who cares about bracketing if you'll never use
>  slide film? Will you push or pull film? If so, then Canon. If you
>  don't care, then Pentax.

Advantages of the PZ-10:  Image size lock with power zoom, interchangeable
  back, backlit display.

Advantages of the Rebel IIs:  Five PIC modes (including full auto),
  program shift, AF assist light, longer slow shutter speed (30s vs. 4s),
  multiple exposures, flash exposure compensation (to allow you to
  change fill flash ratio), DX-override (*very* useful, IMHO), and
  faster AF.

The Rebels actually don't have bracketing built-in.

>  Pentax lenses are quite adequate. Unless you plan to get exotic
>  lenses, who cares if Canon has thousand dollar lenses if you are
>  satisfied with a 28-80 and a 100-300?

The Pentax K-mount is good if you have manual-focus lenses you want to
use on your AF camera.  The Canon EF mount is not, so you can't use your
FD lenses on an EOS.  Of course, the EF mount is all-electronic, so
you'll get better AF performance, especially with USM lenses.

Again, try to play with both cameras to see which you like better.
Both of them have excellent features at a reasonable price.
--
Thomas Wu                                                  "Raise shields."
Internet:  tjwu@athena.mit.edu                             "What shields?"
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: kkwwkk@mixcom.com (TA Shaw)
Subject: Re: Nikon Equivalent of Pentax K1000?
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:53:19 GMT



As a starter camera, do not discount price as one of
the main reason for buying a beginners camera.  I started
with a K1000 and still have a K1000, for around $100 for
the body, (this is a guess), it is comparably(sp) priced
to the point and shoot models.  Of course you need to add
a lens, but I've seen some point and shoot get on the pricey
side as well.

Your starter camera can either be something basic like a
K1000 or something fancy as an auto-everything with overrides
for everything.  It depends on price, features needed, re-sale
value....etc..

I bought my K1000 based on price and durability and reputation. I
still toy with the idea of buying an AF camera, but I'm comfortable
with K1000, although there are times when I would LOVE some of the
features that come with an AF.  

Just Some Thoughts,\

Tom

-- 
  May I walk in beauty.  Make my eyes      | TA Shaw          |        oOO 
  ever behold the red and purple sunset.   | shaw@mixcom.com  |  _____ OO 
  Make my hands respect the things you have+------------------| (_/-\_)..
  made, and my ears sharp to your voice - Chief Yellow Lark   | ==(0).
From: Jimmy.Tung@dartmouth.edu (Jimmy Tung)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: EOS Teleconverter Question
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:41:33 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1993Jan25.164915.23501@kth.se>
d90-nsc@nada.kth.se (Niclas Schopenhauer) writes:

... stuff about teleconverter deleted, ...

> BTW, I recently got a superb night shot of a traffic airliner passing
> EXACTLY in front of the moon. Those opportunities don't come often!!
> 
> So you can guess how disappointed I was when I got the photos from 
> the lab and discovered that the picture was very overexposed.
> I used 200 film, aperture 5,6 and 1/180 sec and a focal length of
> 300mm. The sky was very clear that night.
> 
> Does anyone have a clue as to what exposure values I should have
> used?
> 
> I really wish my Elan had a spotmeter. (sigh)

On the photo (assuming they aren't slides), how big was the jetliner in
comparison to the moon?  Was the jetliner superimposed on a slightly
larger circle of reddish-yellow, or was it a moon with the small
sillouette of a plane in it? Let's ignore all the perception vs.
reality questions for now :-).

Assuming that you had the Elan in partial meter mode (6%) and the
subject centered or the exposure lock on, did you exposure compensate
for a backlit subject?  I'd *guess* that at least 1/2 stop to 1 stop of
overexposure would have been necessary.  But this doesn't sound like a
problem, since you said your pics were overexposed.  Could it be
instead that the lab tech or computer decided to "fix" the pic for a
perceived underexposure?  

BTW, I'm too sure a spot meter would have given you any better results.
 The partial metering through a large lens (9 degree angle of view?)
would have been pretty close to, if not smaller than a handheld
spotmeter.  Of course, metering on 2% of the viewfinder area, ... ;-)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: keithh@bnr.ca (Keith Hanlan)
Subject: Re: Help: Tamron 90-300
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:41:21 GMT

In article <93025.135111QXF1@psuvm.psu.edu> <QXF1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Hi, everyone, Could any of you give me some advice on Tamron 90-300 for Maxxum?
>It will be for my Maxxum 8000i if I get it. Thanks.

I bought one for my 7000i and am using it now on my 7xi. I would
recommend *against* the lens. While it is optically quite good and
is very light, it is rather flimsy in construction. I just spent $120
getting mine repaired after it bent sideways about 5 degrees. This
happened while it was being transported securely in my motorcycle's
tank bag. Also, the zoom and focus adjustment rings are quite rough.
Recently there have been a number of similar lens released. If I were
to replace the lens, I would pay the extra bucks for a Minolta
100-300mm lens. I believe that Sigma has a 75-300 available. You might
look at it too.

It received very good reviews when it was released but these reviews
do not seem to put much emphasis on durability.

Let me know what you decide. I'm curious.

Regards,
Keith Hanlan  KeithH@bnr.ca  Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada 613-765-4645
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: renewing silica gel
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:41:24 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
: 
: >I've come into possesion a quite large packet of silica gel, [...]
: >I understand that I can re-activitate the silica gel by putting
: >it in the oven [...]
: 
: Nuke it in the microwave for 20 minutes or so.

I tried this once, and the silica gel melted and burned.  Perhaps there are
different types of silica gel, or microwaves :-)
-- 
Jay Ts
uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
phone: (813) 979-9169
From: mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Testing shutter speeds.
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:15:16 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <1993Jan19.020547.4308@adobe.com> wtyler@adobe.com (William Tyler) writes:
>
>You will see differences between focal plane and leaf shutters because
>at higher speeds a focal plane shutter is passing a slit over the
>film, so that the exposure of any one part of the film is short but
>some exposure is occurring somewhere on the film over a period of
>typically 1/60 sec. in older shutters. (This will correspond to the
>maximum X synch shutter speed, since the maximum X synch speed is the
>maximum speed at which the entire film is visible at one time.) This
>moving slit is the reason why focal plane shutters can result in
>distorted images when photographing moving objects. 
>

This implies that leaf shutters will not pass a slit, i.e. they will be
fully open for all shutter speeds.  This means that with a leaf shutter,
you can have flash synch at all shutter speeds.  Is this true?

Mike

-- 
Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             mikec@spider.co.uk
Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: davidl@flounder.ratsys.com (Dave Lane)
Subject: a question about Mamiya equipment
Organization: Rational Systems, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:45:57 GMT

Hi.  I have an old (~10 yrs) Mamiya ZE camera for which
I'm having difficulty finding a zoom lens.  The dealers
that I've spoken to say that since Mamiya is no longer
in business, I'm out of luck.  Is this true?  Aren't 
there any other manufacturers who make a lens that'll 
fit?

Thanks.

--
- - -
Dave Lane  davidl@ratsys.com
R a t i o n a l 
Systems, Inc.
From: jtembulk@spica.prime.com (Jawahar Tembulkar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Request for Shutterbug article......
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:10:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Prime Computervision, Bedford MA


I cane seem to get hold of the Shutterbug magazine in any local libraries.
I was looking for the following article :

    Pentax Bayonet : K Series, by W. L. Fadner

which appeared in the May '92 issue.

Would some kind soul who subscribes to Shutterbug, PLEASE send me a copy.

Would really appriciate it.


Jawa




* Statutory Disclaimer : These are merely my views.     *
* Jawahar M. Tembulkar, Computervision, R & D,          *
* 14 Crosby Drive, MS. 14-15, Bedford, MA 01730, USA.   *
* jtembulk@thor.Prime.COM, voice : (617) 275-1800 x3185 *
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Info on Neopan 400 Pro needed
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:58:31 GMT

In article <1juf2lINNhup@morrow.stanford.edu> paque@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Julie Paque) writes:

   Due to a mix up I was accidently sent 10 rolls of 36 exp
   Neopan 400 Professional film.  The mail order place sent
   me the correct item and told me to keep the film !
   They came in canisters, so I have no information at all.
   How does this film compare to Tri-X?  What is the best
   way to develop it?  Any information would be appreciated.

This is decent film.  I used to shoot a lot of it because Freestyle
was selling it cheap.   The grain is a bit finer than tri-x and
the contrast is a little lower.  I develop in 1:1 D76 for
whatever time it says on the data sheet (I don't remember, but
the sheet is available at camera stores, I think around 8 min.
at 70 deg F).  The developing time is a little bit different
than Tri-X, but I don't remember which direction.
From: sun@cco.caltech.edu (Neal K. Chaudhary)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Nikon Equivalent of Pentax K1000?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 20:29:42 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu


Hi
Being new to photography, I was wondering
whether Nikon makes a camera similar to
the Pentax K1000.  
I was also wondering what people think in
general of a K1000 as a camera to learn on.
I like the idea that its all manual, so
you have to figure things out yourself.
Does it alteast have a light meter inside
the viewfinder?

Thanks!
Suneal Chaudhary
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Sigma 24mm/2.8: Good quality?
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:29:51 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <PHR.93Jan20131254@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>In article <EXJTMM.93Jan20155644@ida28.tts.lth.se> exjtmm@tts.lth.se (Thommy M. Malmstr|m) writes:
>
>   I'm about to buy a wide-angle lens for my Nikon F601 and saw that the
>   Sigma 24mm/2.8 had a nice price (~$200 at the local store). Does it
...
>I have the Sigma 24/2.8AF in Nikon mount.  It takes pretty sharp 
>pictures and I haven't noticed the curvature of field problem
>others have mentioned (because I don't shoot close-ups with it).
>I would say the construction is a little on the flimsy side
>so if you use it heavily you might think twice about it.  Since
>I'm not as active in photography these days as I'd like to be,
>this isn't much of a problem for me.


  Another positive vote for the Sigma.  I have it in Canon FD mount.
For its price it's a wonderful lens, although I haven't used any of
the more expensive 24mm lenses.  I've not noticed much curvature of
field either.  I don't think the construction is much inferior to my
other lenses.  The only problem I have with it, at least with my
model, is that you seem to lose about 1/2 stop with the lens.
Whereas on other lenses you might get a reading of 1/60 at f3.5, on
this lens you may only get a reading of 1/60 at 2.8.  I haven't found
this much of a problem - but you might want to check if the Nikon
model has the same problem.

  Another point is that, since Nikon AF cameras (with a few exceptions
I understand) can still accept manual focus lenses, you can save a lot
of money if you buy the manual focus version for Nikon.  It doesn't
make much sense to me to get an autofocus wide angle lens.  The lens
is rarely out of focus, and the depth of field scale is usually much
more useful anyway.




Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ian@rats.demon.co.uk ("Ian A. Young")
Subject: Re: Viewing Filters
Reply-To: ian@rats.demon.co.uk
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.30 $
Organization: not
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:03:53 +0000

In article <YfM6oQi00WBKA6AEUN@andrew.cmu.edu>
   "Frank A. Reynolds" <fr0c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> For years I have seen "viewing filters" listed in catalogs (they all
> seem to sell the same one made by Peak).  One catalog I have states that
> viewing filters will "render tonal values as they will be reproduced by
> film".

Well, that would be one way of putting it.  The way _I_ would put it is
that if you stick one of these in front of your eye you get a 2-second
glimpse of how the scene _might_ appear on film.  You don't want to take
it too literally, and you don't want to concentrate on a scene through
one of these filters, because your eye compensates very rapidly and the
effect disappears again.

> 1.   Has anyone had any experience with them, I'm just interested in the
> one for
>      Black & White film?

I use one from time to time.  Mine is an Ilford "Pan Viewing Filter"
which I recall originally having a Wratten number attached.  It's a
small square effort (two bits of glass taped together with a gel in
between) with a deep purple colour.

> 2.   Are they mainly/only for outdoor work or can they be used for evaluating
>      paintings under tungsten lights also?

I use mine primarily outdoors.  I find it can be handy in figuring out,
for example, whether two colours of grass might show up as different or
whether they might need some help from a filter.

Most of my current pictures are of the dull-as-ditchwater not-more-grey-rocks
variety, though, so I don't find myself using it very much at present.

> 3.   Is the Kodak Wratten 90 (Monochrome Viewing) Filter the same filter
>      unmounted?

Someone whose head is sufficiently capacious to hold the spectral
responses of the Wrattens will no doubt be able to tell you what colour
a #90 is.  Until then, I might speculate that this is the purple one I
have...  The ones I see in catalogues are mostly a muddy green colour. 
However, I have no particular reason to believe that one is right and
the other is wrong.  The purple one seems to work for me.

   -- Ian

P.S.  I would have mailed rather than posted, but it seems to me I have
seen this question before.  (Yet another) one for the FAQ list?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Gels For Strobes
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:16:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.222920.12429@pony.Ingres.COM>, bbarton@Ingres.COM (Brian Barton) writes:
> This is sort of related to the other thread on gels for flashes and cameras.
> 
> I know how attach my current set of 3"x3" Wratten gels to my camera
> (Using a filter holder), but how does one "attach" gels to her/his
> strobe?
> 

DON'T. Wratterns are too fragile. And you can get many wrattern spec 'gels'
or acetates for film lighting. Problem is getting small quantitys.

I cut them into a rectangle with 2 tabs in the middle of the long side. These
can be held on with blue-tack, rubber bands etc.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: harrison@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: XP1 - home development
Reply-To: harrison@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:41:14 GMT

> As strange as it may sound to some people, I prefer to develope XP1 in
> D-76.  I give it about the same time as Delta in the developer, leave it
> a little longer in the fixer, and wash well.  When it is wet, it will
> have a "milky" look to it, but this clears as it dries.  Warning: the
> film is VERY soft until dry, so treat is gently.  Gives fairly nice
> grain with softened contrast with greatest constrast range in the middle
> tones, so it works well for pictures of fair skinned persons.  There is
> some detail loss, but for people it is not a problem.  You can also push
> this film with D-76 developing, and I did not have luck doing the same
> with C-41 developing.

Yes, that does sound strange.  If you're only going to develop and use
the silver image on XP1, and not develop the chromogenic image, why 
bother with XP1 at all?  The chromogenic image has considerably less
grain, BTW.

As for pushing XP1, I recently shot some at 1600 ISO, and processesed
in a Photocolor kit at the recommended 50% overdevelopment.  I haven't 
printed them yet, but some of the negatives look very good, while some 
look a little thin (i.e. no real blacks on negative).  I'll have to
see how they print, and what the grain is like.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Cokin "A" and "P"
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:12:54 GMT

In article <1jplm2INNh6r@lynx.unm.edu>, titan@carina.unm.edu () writes:
> any thoughts on how to put a 4x4 on a lens with
> a 105mm filter thread? 

A strp-up ring and two lumps of blue tack. put the filter on the diagonal
so the gaps are at the 2, 5, 8, 10 o'clock positions. If this is to be a
regular event, make up a fitler holder from a step-up ring.

All the filter holders I have seen cover the corneras of the filter, so you
can't squeeze out those last few mm. Note that is this is for a 6x6, you luck
may run out.

~Paul
From: b1hg0jv@kato.BELL-ATL.COM (Benash)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Is there a new Minolta Camera?
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:14:13 GMT
Organization: Bell Atlantic

In article <1993Jan26.115215.22931@spider.co.uk> mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.112036.4276@ira.uka.de> danisch@ira.uka.de writes:
>>Hi,
>>
>>here in germany the price for the Minolta
>>Dynax/Maxxum 9xi was constant DM 1995,- for long time.
>>Now it is going down fast, i have seen DM 1600,- and
>>DM 1400,- .
>>
>>Could this be an early sign for a new Minolta (higher
>>than 9xi) ?
>>
>>
>>Hadmut
>
>I don't know about a new high end, but I've heard that in Japan you can buy
>Minolta Dynaxes with a special "panoramic" option that lets you take panoramic
>pictures.  I suspect it's like the disposables, where you only get a narrow
>exposure in a standard 35mm frame.  In any event, last I heard they weren't
>being sold outside of Japan, but I suppose it's up to the individual distrib-
>utors whether they feel it's worthwhile to import or not.
>
>Mike
>
>-- 
>Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             mikec@spider.co.uk
>Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
>Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Are you sure this isn't just an xi/Dynax packaged with the panoramic adapter
availble in the States as well? Or is it really an additonal model in the
lineup?

Ray
b1hg0jv@kato.bell-atl.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: What does ED glass really buy you?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:38:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.173218.28028@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
> In article <1jmhnoINNqbr@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
> > My understanding is that the ultra-expensive telephoto and
> > zoom lenses featuring ED-type elements allows colors in
> > whatever wavelength to focus on a single plane.  My question
> > is, if you take a non-ED lens of the same focal length, and
> > stop it down several stops, would not the inherent depth of
> > focus at the film plane have much the same effect, esp. with
> > a subject focussed at infinity?  In other words, would the
> > ED type lenses really come into their own when used at near
> > fully open apertures... which kind of implies that the photographer
> > wanted to either hand hold, or for some other reason wanted to
> > maximize shutter speed (sports, nature)?  What it comes down to,
> > for tripod-mounted landscape use, with small apertures, is there
> > any advantage to ED?
> > 
> 
> Some aberations are improved by stoping down a lens, but some are not.
> Stoping down won't help chromatic aberation or distortion (pincushion
> or barrel effects). ED and fluorite lenses do eliminate chromatic
> aberation, but their use is only really required for telephoto lenses,
> wher chromatic aberation can be very strong. Most landscape work is
> done with wide angle lenses (though certainly not all), which really
> don't need ED glass (but it certainly doesn't hurt). If you want to do
> landscape work with a stopped down telephoto, you still need ED glass.
> 

I should point out that there are two types of chromatic aberation. 
One is longitudinal chromatic aberation which results in a different
focus for each wavelength. I need to think about this some more, but
maybe stopping down does reduce this?? I'm not sure.

The second is lateral chromatic aberation (lateral color) in which the
difference in focal length for each color results in a different
magnification for different colors. This is not influenced by aperture
and so stopping down doesn't help.

Good question though. Makes me think I should read up on the subject 
a bit more.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================


Newsgroups: rec.photo