HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe, and Big Cities (was: Camera Feature Wars...)
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:57:15 GMT

| Idaho.
|
| But please don't tell anyone. ;^)

		  -Geoff

But didn't Idaho vote for George "Let them eat broccoli" Bush?

					    -Alan

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Same aperture on different focal lengths?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:32:32 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <TSOS.176.721997308@uni-duesseldorf.de> TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert) writes:
>Basically I agree with what you said (although it's not actually the
>aperture size that counts, but the size of the aperture stop *as seen*
>through the front element; with some lenses this does make a difference
>[look through a wide-angle from the back: the aperture actually is much
>larger than it seems when you see it from the front]). (*)
>
>But I don't believe that there are no significant differences in light
>transmissions for various lenses at the same f-stop. I once read a
>model calculation some time ago that showed a difference of > 1/3 f-stop
>between a multi-element zoom lens and a simple prime lens; this would be
>noticeable e.g. on slide film. (I can find the reference in case anyone
>is interested.)
>---
>(*) This is the reason why the influence of diffraction on the sharpness
>    of a short wide-angle ( <= 20mm) stopped down to f22 is not so bad
>    as one might expect from the formula  (focal length)/22  that yields
>    something < 1mm.
>    The size of the exit pupil which can be seen through the rear element(s)
>    is often closer to the actual aperture diameter.

How sure are you of this last (*) fact?  I'm not at all sure that I
believe it.  Yes the image of the diaphragm is bigger, but it is also
a lot farther way from the film than one focal length.  I worked out to
myself that the angular diameter of the diaphragm as seen from the
film is consistent with the effective f-stop.  (In particular I took
the effective f-stop to be sM/a where s is the subject-to-entrance-pupil 
distance, M the magnification, and a the aperture diameter.)
So the larger effective aperture reduces (angular) diffraction, but
the longer exit-pupil to film distance exactly compensates.

  -- David Jacobson
From: J.David.W.Reeves@dartmouth.edu (J. David W. Reeves)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: EOS Elan vs. alternatives in price range
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:36:37 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

I'm in the market for a new camera.  I'm trading up from the 1000F
(Rebel S), so I'm familiar with the EOS system, but I'd like to hear of
viable alternatives to the Elan (100).  What are the advantages of the
comparable Minolta (5xi?) and Nikon (?) cameras over the Elan?

Thanks
-Dave Reeves
From: mopar+@pitt.edu (Jerome A. Marella)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: rec.photo FAQ and answers
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:06:47 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <102096@bu.edu>, dtang@bass.bu.edu (yunfei zhang) writes:

[stuff deleted]

> The above is what I just read from the rec.photo FAQ.  Frankly, I
> don't think it is well written.  The only thing I learned from 
> above is that a "regular" polarizer may confuse the auto-focus
> machanism, but I still do not understand why.
> 

It may not be well written, but for someone like me who didn't know anything
about photography at all, it answered a bunch of basic (stupid :) "What is
an f-stop" type questions. The definiton of terms and the general question
sections were very helpful. 

Just a beginners opinion...

--
Jerome A. Marella
mopar+@pitt.edu    mopar@pittvms.bitnet
From: dollbes@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: "point & Shoot" camera opinion needed
Date: 21 Nov 92 19:23:23 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

Will you out there help with an advice?

Looking to buy a holiday present a 'point and shoot' camera. Musts: autofocus
built in flash and databack. May benefit from autoloading etc. 
Price limit $120 but prefer <$100.

Suggestions? experience (good or bad)?

Shaul
dollbes@ucbeh.san.uc.edu


*******************************************************************************

  
 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shm@syl.syl.nj.nec.com (Shailendra Majmundar)
Subject: Info Needed: Infrared Films and processing
Reply-To: shm@syl.nj.nec.com
Organization: NEC Systems Laboratory, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 16:44:29 GMT

Hi All!

A dear friend of mine has requested to bring him Infrared films and its
processing kit to India when I go there on a vacation early next year. I
do not know anything about such films and I could not find related infor-
mation in local photo shops in my town. Can some one please educate me what
this film is used for and where should I buy them? Also I need to buy the
processing kit. Are they very expensive? Any related suggestions as to
quality, grade, brand name, developing environment required etc. would be
greatly appreciated. This is a totally gray area for me.

Thanks in advance!
Sam (shm@syl.nj.nec.com)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John)
Subject: Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 09:17:25 GMT


Hmmmm. This may be of some interest.

I sold a EF80-200 f/2.8 L lens to a customer for $1300. I had to
special order it from Canon, it took a couple of weeks, and it
comes in a large case, and uses 72mm filters (ordered from Hoya)

What are these lenses selling for in other parts of the country?

(PS- I work at a camera retailer)

-- 
#############################################################
# Scaramento Public Access UNIX     sactoh0.SAC.CA.US       #  
#  (916) 649-0161, 722-6516 & 722-5068    E-Mail & USENET   #
################## default .signature file ##################
From: madler@vssad.enet.dec.com (Michael C. Adler)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Setting up a darkroom...
Keywords: fogging, developers, darkroom, old enlargers
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:51:31 GMT
Reply-To: madler@vssad.enet.dec.com (Michael C. Adler)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


Enlarger lens mounts are pretty well standardized on the Leica screw
mount.  If your Opemus lens board opening is too small then you have some
work to do but as long as the hole is large enough for the standard mount
you ought to be able to use a new lens.  Even if the hole is slightly
too large I would think you could use a pair of retaining rings, with
one on the outside acting as a washer, to keep the lens reasonably
stable.  The only other problem I can imagine is if the bellows don't
allow the lens to get close enough to the negative for focusing.

Indicator stop bath should be fine as long as it indicates good health.
You might choose to use a water rinse on film but I'd still use stop
bath for paper.

Testing for fogging is relatively simple.  Just keep in mind that exposed
emulsions are more susceptible to fogging than completely unexposed
ones.  The usual test is to start completely in the dark and make a
test strip under the enlarger to determine the maximum exposure such
that you perceive no darkening of the emulsion compared to an unexposed
border.  To test for fogging problems flash paper with this small exposure
and then wave the flashed paper wherever you wish to test for fogging
before developing it.

Enjoy,
-Michael
From: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: How to keep expired date films?!
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:12:41 GMT
Reply-To: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

In rec.photo, dtang@bass.bu.edu (yunfei zhang) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.195051.2108@ucbeh.san.uc.edu> dollbes@ucbeh.san.uc.edu 
wr >ites: >>What is the best way to keep color print film that is almost 
past the "develop >>before" date. Some say freezer, some refrigerator????
>>Thanks for any ideas. >> >>Shaul in Cincinnati > >Common sense tells 
me that keeping in freezer is better.  The whole >purpose of keeping 
the film cold is to slow down the chemical >kinetics which is temperature 
dependent.  So far, I am keeping my >films in the freezer packaged in 
a plastic bag (together with >all my frozen meat :-))

I was also concerned about this issue.  I keep a lot of Vericolor pro
film around.  Vericolor has a shorter "life" than other films and is
supposed to be refrigerated.  I have heard pros and cons about the freezer,
so I called the Professional Markets division of Eastman Kodak.

They confirmed that freezing was a good way to preserve the film (well,
at least the type I use).  In particular some of mine had gone a month
or two out of date.  They said that since the film had been kept in
the freezer, I had effectively extended its life.

So, freeze away!


   /|/| /||)|/  /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~   |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
  / | |/ ||\|\  \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_|  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======
Newsgroups: rec.photo,ne.forsale,misc.forsale
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Nikon lens + more forsale.
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:44:13

    Nikon MD-11 motor drive.  It fits the FE and (I think, not sure) the
    FE-2.  Maybe others too.  I never use it, never used it, and it's
    in the same shape it's in when I bought it (new).  $140/BRO.

Don't use an MD11 on an FE2.  It will fit but the meter batteries will
go dead if you forget to turn it off.  You need an MD12.
The MD11 also works with the FM, though.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lswab@x400gate.bnr.ca (Lyndon Swab)
Subject: Re: The Kodak disposable underwater camera
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.,
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:23:06 GMT

>>>>> "SUE" == SUE DAKIMOWICZ <sue-d@nwu.edu> writes:
  SUE> Followup-To: rec.photo

  SUE> I'm going to the Virgin Islands in about 2 1/2 weeks and I want
  SUE> to go snorkeling.  I was wondering if anyone has ever used the
  SUE> disposable cameras that you can take underwater?  If so, how
  SUE> deep can you go?  What is the quality of the pictures ( are
  SUE> they sharp or fuzzy?)  Are there any other companies that make
  SUE> a similar camera, like Fuji maybe?

  SUE> I would really appreciate any comments!  Please email me or you
  SUE> can just respond to this posting.

  SUE> Thanks!

  SUE> Sue

  SUE> sue-d@nwu.edu
  SUE> Northwestern University
  SUE> Mechanical Engineering Department
  SUE> Evanston, IL  60208

I went on a cruise a year ago.  The ship sold dozens of these cameras
- everyone ended up buying one.  Keep in mind that you'll pay a lot
more on the ship, so buy before you leave.

I didn't hear of anyone's camera leaking.  Mine went about 20ft down.
I think it can handle snorkelling, but I wouldn't trust it for diving.
Besides, the cameras are too buoyant - I think most divers would find
them to be a pain.

As for picture quality, well, you get what you pay for.  Overall, the
results were quite good.  I got some great "snaps" to record the
event, but no "contest winners".  You can have a lot of fun with a
$15, bomb-proof camera.

My big recommendation for underwater shots is to get close to your
subject.  The water absorbs all but blue light.  Any more than 6 feet
of water between you and your subject, and the picture will be
disappointingly blue.  Add to that the fact that blue light scatters
more, and your pictures get both blue and blurry.


--
Lyndon Swab     lswab@bnr.ca, (613) 763-7165, ESN 393-7165
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: RSPEIRS@130.187.170.178 (RON SPEIRS)
Subject: Re: Besseler 23C Color enlarger
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:00:24 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <1992Nov18.183333.16412@u.washington.edu> "Pete writes:

> I'm in the market for a color enlarger, and I have a chance to buy a 
> used Besseler 23C color enlarger (plus misc other equipment) for $300.
> I currently have no info about this enlarger, so anything you know 
> would be appreciated.
> 
> I'm looking for a good color enlarger that can handle both 35 mm and 
> 6x7 though I don't really need the 6x7 right now.  I want something
> that is very stable and can help me make exceptional prints.  
> The maximum size print I can process right now is 12"x16", 
> so the enlarger needs to be able to do at least that size.  Does
> this enlarger fit the bill?
> 
Yes, the 23C will easily do a 12x16 print with a 50 mm lens.  If they are
offering the 23C WITH a color head for $300, snatch it up.  That's a good
deal.  If you plan to print 6x7 negatives, you will need a longer lens,
like 75 mm.  I also use the 75 mm lens a lot with 35 mm negatives to make
smaller prints, such as 3x5 or 5x7.  That arrangement keeps a more 
comfortable working distance between the lens and the paper.  Another nice
thing about the 23C is that the whole head tilts, allowing you to make very
large prints.  I just finished making some 20x30 B&W prints with my 23C.
The processing?  That's another story.

Ron Speirs, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah
From: madler@vssad.enet.dec.com (Michael C. Adler)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Contrast mask woes
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:39:46 GMT
Reply-To: madler@vssad.enet.dec.com (Michael C. Adler)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


I tried to make a contrast mask this weekend for a 35mm transparency and
now have a question.  The scene was essentially a black and white image
(though taken on Kodachrome) of a deep black volcanic peak with patches
of snow as well as very puffy clouds behind it.  There is about a 5 stop
difference between the detail in the clouds and the detail in the mountain
and the actual detail within each object covers about 1 stop in each range.
Your basic printing nightmare.

It just so happens that dodging would work perfectly well for this image
since the two separate exposure areas are rather easily separated but I
wanted to try using a contrast mask to find out what the effect would be.

I made a mask that seemed about the minimum density to make the image
printable without dodging.  I wouldn't say the cloud region was especially
dark.  The mask had relatively low but perceptible detail (developed about
1/3 of normal) and was unsharp.  When I laid the mask over the slide a miracle
occurred:  the subtle detail in the clouds disappeared completely.  The mask
compensated perfectly for the original and generated a very nice gray.

I don't believe using an intermediate highlight mask would have worked since
the detail was too subtle.  I'm also not convinced that I can make a mask
with much less contrast (perhaps I'm wrong).

I was using 35mm FP4+ for masking film and used Ilfotech-HC 1:31 to develop
it for 2 minutes at 68 deg. F.

Any suggestions on what I could do differently?

Thank you,
-Michael
From: milt@sdd.hp.com (Milt Fisher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Sap
Date: 19 Nov 1992 15:36:43 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

I'd like to thank everyone who replied to my request for ways to remove
tree sap from my Nikon 8008s.  The responses that I received included
lanolin, hair conditioner, Freon TF, denatured alcohol, automotive bug and
tar remover, "Goo Gone" (lemon oil), mild soap and water, rubbing alcohol,
warm water and patience, and finally, margarine.  And the winner is ...

Well, luckily I didn't have to try all of the above so I guess I can't
really declare a winner.  But I do know who the looser is.  I finally got
some time last night (the baby went to sleep early), so I decided to try to
remove the sap.  I first tried soap and water.  After a couple of minutes
of rubbing I was afraid of wearing a hole through the camera back, ran out
of patience, and hadn't seen any improvement so thought it was time to try
something else.  So I guess tree sap is not very soluble in water,
especially after it's had a week or so to harden.  The next handy thing
that I had was isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol), so I tried it.  It
worked!  It removed the sap quite easily, and didn't seem to hurt the finish.
I even used it on the plastic window covering the selftimer LED without any
problems.  I'm glad I didn't have to try the margarine routine. :-)

Thanks again to all who responded.
-- 

Milt Fisher - Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
milt@sdd.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs)
Subject: Re: bulk loading 35mm questions
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:29:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.022002.72266@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jk0j@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOHN KISH) writes:
>I am considering bulk loading 35mm film for the first time and have a few
>questions.  It seems to me there is no reason to buy a bulk loader.  Why not
>just spool the film on the cassette in the dark?  It would take a little
>practice to judge when there is enough film to make a 36 exp. roll, but not
>impossible.
>
I've never bought a bulk-loader and have always loaded film this way.  Here's
how to measure the length of film:  Put two nails about 1 cm apart on a wall or
shelf to your right.  Put another nail 5 feet to the left of the other nails.
This will measure 1/20 (5 feet x 20 rolls = 100 feet) of a standard bulk roll.
Attach the film to the spool with masking tape, put the spool by the two nails
so that the film comes between the nails, and stretch the film to the other
nail and cut the film.  Then wind the film on the spool and put it in the
cassette, leaving a little film out.

>How does bulk loading work with auto loading cameras?  I'm using a Canon T-90.

Sorry, can't comment about automatic cameras.
>
> I know DX speed indexing will not work, but how will my T-90 know when to
> rewind?  Will it keep shooting till the film stops?  Is this hard on the
> camera?
>
I think that most camera sense the tug at the end of the film.

Final thought:  Be sure to practice on junk film until you feel confident.

Ron Speirs, Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Subject: Re: colour balance: enlarged vs. contact?
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:34:23 GMT


In article <721809533snx@rats.demon.co.uk>, ian@rats.demon.co.uk ("Ian
A. Young") writes:
|> I just performed the following experiment:
|> 
|>    1. take a 5x4 colour negative (on VPS, if it matters)

A 5x4 colour...  Oh!  You mean "a 4x5 color negative"!  :)

|>    2. expose a 10x8 print and hide it away

A 10x8...  Oh!  You mean "an 8x10 print"!  :)  :) 

|>    3. remove the negative from the enlarger and place it on another
|>       10x8 piece of paper.  Expose it under the same filtration for the
|>       same time as the print in 2.
|> 
|>    4. put both 10x8s in a drum processor and process them together.
|> 
|>    5. observe that the enlargement is definitely more yellow than
|>       the contact print.
|> 
|> I can't think of a plausible explanation for my observation.  The way I
|> see it, the colour balance of the contact print should be exactly the
|> same as that of enlargement:

The only thing I can think of is flare in your enlarger lens and/or
in the room.  This is a guess.  Perhaps more testing is in order.

Do you feel like trying the test again with a photograph of a full-frame
gray card instead?  That should eliminate flare as an option.  And then
perhaps a white card in half the frame and a green card in the other half,
or some such thing, to see if the white card gets a bit colored, (ahem)
coloured, when you enlarge it.

Maybe I can do this in my spare time, if you don't get to it first.
You've certainly got me curious, too!

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
Organization: Doctoral student, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:00:52 -0500 
From: Luis Abdon Cifuentes <lc0v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Good color lab by mail?

Hello netters,
  I am looking for a good quality semi-pro color lab that can handle 120
roll film. I am dissapointed with the local pro lab I am using. They
charge $0.69 per frame, and their quality control is not so good.

Any info will be appreciated. I may summarize all the replies if there
is interested. Is this info in the FAQ? (btw, where is the FAQ?)

Luis
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: Resolution of Lens ???
Reply-To: jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:52:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.180913.3777@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
>
>Jason,
>     Do you speak from experience or theory? I know from published film
>specs that I SHOULD be able to resolve 125lp/mm, but I can't. I use a 
>Zeiss microscope (not available form Toys'R Us!) to examine negatives and
>slides. The resolution just isn't there. There was an article which I have
>somewhere at home, in which Modern Photography tried to resolve >100 lp/mm
>using every trick they could. Flash exposure, the best (Nikon, Canon, Zeiss,
>Leica) 50mm lenses, the sharpest (Tech Pan, K25 and a bunch of other) films
>they shot at all apertures to get the best possible results etc... They found
>that the BEST lens at its BEST aperture on the BEST film could only just
>squeak by with 100 lp/mm (maybe 101 or 102 lp/mm). They could easily get
>numbers in the high 80's to low 90's but 100 lp/mm was very, very hard.
>Even then these numbers were only in the center of the field.
>If you have test slides or negatives showing 100 lp/mm resolution (vertical
>and horizontal patterns resolved) I'd really like to see them and try to
>figure out what I'm doing wrong!
>
I spoke from my experience.

From what you described, I think we are coming down to what we mean
when we say a particular pattern is resolved. 

The rules are simple: you need to see the separation of the 5 horizontal
and verticle lines. In reality, there is a grey area where lines are broken
(probably due film or processing) but you can still see the separation
between lines. I would count it as resolved. 

I would like to see if I can dig out one of the old films that registered
my test on Canon EF 28/f2.8 where I first (and only) resolved a pattern
over 100 lp/mm. If I do find it, I will be glad to send it to you.

If you don't hear from me in couple of days, send me an e-mail to remind
me.

Jason
Newsgroups: rec.photo