HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: flash recommendations, was: Advice for Buying a Nikon 8008s "Package"
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:56:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsj.1992Aug13.195651.20348
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <PHR.92Aug13102820@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
>    I have both. Get the SB-24.  The SB-23 is fine as a second flash, but it 
>    is pitiful as a first flash.  Very good chance at red eye.  I don't
>    think it will cover to 28mm, and if it does, it isn't very powerful.
>    Primarily, it is stupid.  I can only use it on my TTL nikons because
>    it doesn't have a manual mode.  It doesn't even have a test button.
>    I might go with a third party flash before settling for the SB-23.
>
>This sounds like good advice.  I have been wanting a compact
>second flash and considered the SB-23 but decided against it for
>these reasons--I want to be able to use it on my non-TTL Nikons too.
>Nice things about the SB-23: very compact, *very* fast recycling,
>autofocus assist.  Can anyone recommend a comparable 3rd party
>flash?  Tilt/swivel would be nice, but I can live without the AF
>assist if needed.
>
>In bigger flashes (I feel foolish using my SB24 on a mechanical camera
>and having a backup is a nice idea), does anyone use a Sunpak 383?
>Does it really beat the Vivitar 283/5?

(sorry for including all this stuff...usually i hate it when
others do it!)

i also have both units...and the SB23 does have a full-power
manual setting for non-TTL applications.

duane
From: psilsbee@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Peter Silsbee)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Why do photofinishers crop so much?
Summary: I'm annoyed
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:29:33 GMT
Reply-To: psilsbee@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Peter Silsbee)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: psilsbee@mickey.cc.utexas.edu

Hi,
  it seems that all the places I get my color negatives
printed chop off large portions of the picture during
the printing process. I've taken them to three different
local shops recently and they're all the same. Is there
a reason for this? The aspect ratio is exactly the same,
by the way, I'm shooting 35 mm. (24x36 mm. image size)
and printing on 4x6 in., so that's no excuse. Is this 
standard practice? If so, why? I'm not talking about
a little margin-of-error, here, but fully 2.5-3 mm. of image
gone... this is about 15% of the image area! I'm tired of
heads, hats, tops of mountains, etc. missing and I'd rather not
have to leave a zone of extraneous material all the way around.
Any comments or recommendations (besides do it myself, I've 
already concluded that this might solve several problems but
it's not going to happen THIS year anyway...)?

Thanks, Peter
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow)
Subject: Re: Sigma 600mm f/8 Reflex on AF cameras?
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:41:31 GMT


On Nikon FM's with a Nikon 500mm f8.0 (older style), I've had no
trouble focussing at the nominal f8 aperature, using the ground
glass collar. Although this lens is somewhat low in contrast
it is adequately sharp for me, as infrequently as I use i
-- 
Michael Volow, Psychiatry, Durham VA Med Center, Durham NC 27712
919 286 0411 Ext 6933               mvolo@uncecs.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: RE: Cambridge.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 16:21:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <14AUG92.16134336.0033@vmxa.polymtl.ca>, by DH02@polytec1.polymtl.ca (DH02000):
> In article <1992Aug13.211408.24283@en.ecn.purdue.edu> cmcdowel@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Charles E. McDowell) writes:
>>I am posting this message as a warning to anyone who is considering ordering
>>any photo supplies through a place called Cambridge Camera in New York.
>>Without going into detail, these guys are extreme sleazballs.  Their ads appear
> 
> How appropriately said!  I must describe my experience too.  I wanted
> I wanted to buy a Nikon F4s and Nikkor lenses, SB-24, filters, etc.

Wow, what's next?  Perhaps we can get Charles Manson to take over 
Mother Theresa's work in India?  No sir, you don't buy a Rolls Royce
thru the local sleazy car dealer (who just move here from NYC)!
Don't mean to laugh at you, but having dealt with Cambridge myself
I just couldn't help it.
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Medium-fomrat camera with a self-timer?
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:12:25 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <13224@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
> Older medium formats had self timers- Rolleiflexes, Mamiya
> 645/1000s, Mamiya TLR with a certain lens (105?).  Today,
> the Fujica 645 series does, I'm not sure about the Pentax 645.
> 
> I treasure self-timers, not so much because I want to get in the
> shot, as that I don't have to mess around with a shutter release.
> 
> 	Dave
My Pentax 645 does NOT have one.  If anyone knows of a company that might make
a self timer that screws in like a mechanical cable release, i'd be very
interested in it.  That seems to be the only solution to a camera w/o self
timer, aside from switching systems. (and i love self timers too.)

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: polycarbonate camera bodies
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:53:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.205256.16290@midway.uchicago.edu>, ar12@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard Nixon) writes:
...
> The ONLY reason is that polycarbonate can be injection moulded
> whereas aluminum/titanium/etc. cannot. Now, anyone care to guess the
> difference in manufacturing costs between injection moulding 50,000 bodies
> and die-casting?

About $10k for a simple non-reenterant shape. Al 2 mould sets, polymer one for
50K run. Note that if you use LOTS of carbon fibre in the mix, this will vanish
with the higher errosion rate. The only differences are the higher capital cost
for C/PC, the MUCH higher strenths possible and the lack of termal effects. The
Al contacts LOTS as it cools, and thicker sections are needed for final finish
machineing.

See any good aero-space engineering journal to be dis-abused of the properties
of good composite materials. 

Wheather or not model Y of brand X uses them or not is  the real issue to look
out for.

The warning about long heavy lenses applies just as well to the lens as the
body. I saw a photog rip a ~600mm FD L in half at the Belgian GP years ago.
Span around holding the body of his F-1n. Kerrunch... That note is a all metal
lens.

The thing that composites do like is point loading. If the screws retaining the
frount mount don't spread the load well, they will tend to rip out. Steel
inserts are the fix for this one. As is so often, its the little details that
make all the difference, and the only way to see is to rip it open. For some
reason, saleks get all thing when you pull you screw driver out...

~Paul
From: sm@cel.co.uk (salim mehta)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: OM10 replacement
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:14:17 GMT
Organization: Crosfield Electronics Ltd.
In-reply-to: rich@apricot.co.uk's message of 17 Aug 92 16:16:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.161616.4669@apricot.co.uk> rich@apricot.co.uk (Richard Jones) wrote:
[stuff deleted] 
> Thats enough about the OM10.  Its going to be replaced ...  problem is
> what with!  All the new cameras seem to have more electronic (read
> here - things to go wrong) than the OM10 :-(
> 
> My short list looks like this right now -
> 
>   Olympus OM4ti
>   Nikon F-601AF

You've picked two very different cameras; the OM4 is aimed at the pro/press
photographer, whereas the Nikon is for the serious amateur. The Nikon has lots
of (good) features, but is affordable. The OM4 places the sturdiness above
features. Both are good cameras.

If you regularly take photos in hostile environments try to seal the camera
body; use masking tape or place the whole body in a bag. The battery chamber,
film back and winder coupling are all good (bad) places for dirt to enter!

If ultimate quality is not important use throwaway cameras where the equipment
may be damaged. Or how about a secondhand mechanical camera; cheap and tough?

I have a Canon EOS10 and it has been reliable - but it doesn't get hard use.
Your comments about Olympus abandoning the SLR market ring true; a pity, I
started with an OM10. However market research indicates that the maximum
growth is in the P&S and throwaway business. Camcorders have taken the SLR
customers.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salim Mehta                             Phone :  +44 442 230000  x3450
Crosfield Electronics Ltd               Fax   :  +44 442 232301
Hemel Hempstead  HERTS HP2 7RH  UK      Email :  sm@crosfield.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Alt email :  sm@cel.uucp     ...!{mcsun,uknet,uunet}!cel!sm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wave@media.mit.edu (Michael B. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Photography in low light?
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:11:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.215131.25859@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.124540.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>>> 
>>>If the light is so low that the human eye can't see color, i'd say your only
>>>choice would be a high speed B&W.  THis summer, either Pop. Photo or Petersens
>>>Photo. had an article that mentioned T-MAX P3200 rated at EI25000 for
>>>surveillance work.  Try some T-MAX at 6400 or 12500 (and a hand-held meter
>>>that can handle the low light!).
>>
>>I remember reading that, and I also remember thinking to myself, "How is it
>>possible to rate a film so high".  I didn't think the ISO "standard" went
>>that high?
>>

Using my good old Maxxum 9000, I just underexpose by 4 stops.  I actually
did that (underexposed by 4 stops and then push processed) 3 rolls of 
Ektar 1000 the other day.  One shot at a party, with very, very low light
and two at a press conference Al Gore was at the other day.  I got very
useful (albeit thin) shots in all cases.

I've shot probably 15 or 20 rolls of the P3200, pushed anywhere from 1
to 4 stops and been very happy with the results.



-- 

-->  Michael B. Johnson
-->  MIT Media Lab      --  Computer Graphics & Animation Group
-->  (617) 253-0663     --  wave@media-lab.media.mit.edu
From: andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Flash & Lens for Nikon FM2
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:25:44 GMT
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA

dea@jec309.its.rpi.edu (Anirban De) writes:
| 
|1.Flash: The Nikon FM2 brochure lists SB 16B, SB 20, SB 22 and SB 24 as
|possible flashes that may be mounted directly on the camera.
|Can anyone recommend which one would best suite the needs of an amateur 
|of fair proficiency. I do not wish to use the unit "heavily" and will 
|use the flash only with FM2.

I suggest instead of any of these Nikon flashes that you get a Vivitar 283.
It is virtually the industry-standard non-dedicated flash in the U.S. and
works fine with an FM-2. It is about as powerful as a shoe-mounted flash can
be (GN 100), has a bounce head, and a detachable flash sensor should you 
ever need to do that. Best of all, you should be able to get one for about
$80 or less.

| 
|2. Lens: Can I use "AIS" zoom lenses (eg. 28-35mm f/3.5-4.5) with FM2 ?
| 

Yes.

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    % Andy Cassino                                       %
    % Hewlett-Packard - Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Subject: Re: Enlarger vs. Slide Projector
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 07:08:48 GMT


In article <BsyAz0.2BD@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>,
drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond) writes:

|>   What does that have to do with the comparison?  Now if you had said 
|> that people used slide projectors to make big enlargements, or that a 
|> large number of people show their slides to their friends via flipped
|> enlargers, then I might agree that there was less difference.  (oh,
|> wait a minute, I see your point - it's that the prints people get with
|> wall enlargements are just about as lousy as the results they get with 
|> their slide projectors. This is probably true.)

Could you have found a way to say this without being so nasty?  This
is rec.photo, not alt.bad.attitude.

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
From: GOCH@UNB.CA (Myron Gochnauer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: View Camera Questions
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:14:58 GMT
Organization: The University of New Brunswick

The Address of Zone VI is:
Zone VI Studios INC
Newfane, Vermont 05345-0219

order phone number: 802-257-5161
Calumet, which handles most, but not all, Zone Vi equipment is:
1-800-225-8638
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Myron Gochnauer <GOCH@UNB.CA>
Subject: Re: More 4x5 questions
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:22:43 GMT

In article <5360785@hplsla.hp.com> andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino) writes:
>franz@cs.washington.edu (Franz G. Amador) writes:
>>
>> Lastly (uh oh) a lens question.  I currently have only a Symmar-S
>> 210/5.6, and I'd like a 90/8.  The Nikkor 90/8 is about $200 cheaper
>> than the Super Angulon 90/8.  Do you get what you pay for, or are they
>> pretty much equivalent?  I ask because I've heard or read several
>> authoritative-sounding claims that all decent large-format lenses are
>> good enough for all but highly specialized applications.
>>
I don't have any experience with with Nikon 90/8, but I have used two
different Super Angulon 90/8's. (The SA's were from early 60's and mid
70's.) The later model was sharper, and certainly consistent with the
quality I was getting from a 210 Symmar-S. I now use a Grandagon 90/6.8.
The Grandagon is clearly superior, in my opinion. (Maybe I was lucky
with the Grandagon and unlucky with the SA.) Both lenses, though, have
the typical light falloff from center to edge. I have *never* found it
troublesome with B&W film and prints (Tri-X or T-Max). It *is* obvious
with colour transparencies, though.
For what it's worth, I didn't have too much difficulty focussing with
any of these lenses, although it *is* easier with brighter images.
In my opinion, German lenses are now overpriced. A few years ago their
prices were very much in line with Nikon & Fuji prices. (I might
mention that I own Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon and Fuji large format
lenses, and I'm happy with them all! Fuji wide angles might be worth
investigating --- I have a 65/8 about 15 years old that is better than
SA 65/8's of the same vintage.)

Xref: sparky rec.photo:14411 alt.models:1108
From: badboy@netcom.com (Jay Keller)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.models
Subject: Re: looking for information on pinhole photography.
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:13:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug19.031500.28649@panix.com> reynolds@panix.com 
(Brian Reynolds) writes:

>A recent article in the International Plastic Modelers' Society
>Journal (v4n3) discussed using a pinhole lens (available from AJ
>Fricko Co.  (513) 784-0019) for taking pictures of plastic models with
>full scale prototypes and equipment in the backgroud.  Is there
>anywhere that I can get more information on pinhole photography.  Most
>of the books I've seen mention the pinhole lens while explaining the
>operation of normal lenses.  The one or two books I've seen that go
>into actually using a pinhole lens state that the sharpness suffers
>when using a pinhole.  The pictures in the IPMS article are much
>sharper than any of the pinhole pictures in the general photography
>books.

Ansel Adams' book "The Camera" has a couple of pages on pinhole cameras.
While not an exhaustive treatment, I found it very interesting.  He had a
set of pinhole "lenses" made for his camera, using gold foil for the aperture.

Regards,

Jay Keller
Sunnyvale, California, USA

badboy@netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: kting@cse.unl.edu (Kea Ting)
Subject: Re: Qualex complaints (was Fuji E-6 labs)
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:10:16 GMT

ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:

>In article <1992Aug21.204226.22220@samba.oit.unc.edu>, rslugg@med.unc.edu (Robert Slugg) writes:
>> In the September Shutterbug Bob Shell in the article about Gold+ films has
>> a several paragraph bitch session about kodalux service.  I'm still
>> getting 5 day turnaround and no scratches or dirt on my slides, and they
>> are still mounting my remaining rolls of "processing/unmounted" B&H
>> kodachrome.  
>> 
>Note that Shell's comments were related to Kodalux PRINT processing, not
>their slide processing service. He actually commented that their Kodachrome
>service had improved since the early days after conversion from Kodak to
>Kodalux.

    This is about the six rolls of VPS ASA160 that I send into Qualex, 
and eventually the film being return to me and have a note saying that
they can't identify what type of film is that and ask me to specify
the process of the film needed (c-41 , E-6, and some others). At first
the Qualex people guess the film is slide films. I have the
sticker lable on the film say : VPS 160 (asa160) , buy the way the films
was bulk loaded . I am quite surprice Kodaklux do not know what is
VPS 160 and what kind of process the film need.

 


--
soon

University Of                  Disclaimer :
Nebraska-Lincoln               I always speak for myself.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: terryfry@access.digex.com (Terry Fry)
Subject: Re: Qualex complaints (was Fuji E-6 labs)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 05:15:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.133058.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>For Qualex's sake, i hope that they have a rep somewhere paying attention to
>this kind of complaint.  Qualex's ``improvement'' by going to bulk mailings
>ends up making some parts of the country VERY slow.  i waited 72 days for a
>roll of Kodachrome this spring, and then read their insert explaining the
>virtues of the new system included with my slides.  Since i was used to 14
>day turnaround with the old system, i stopped buying Kodalux mailers.  Now 
>all my slides go to A&I in Hollywood: much faster, much better quality control
>(they call me at home to resolve processing questions!), and the added
>expense is minimal.
> 
>Qualex is heading the wrong direction in quality and service areas, and i don't
>think they realize it.
>

It is Kodaks name that Qualex is running though the mud.  I think that as long
as Kodak is in the film business, they should run those labs.  It was a major
mistake to sell the labs to an outside company and its beginning to show up
now in lack of customer support, and rediculous cost cutting.  Whether Kodak
wants to acknolege it or not, Qualex reflects on them very poorly.
From: rocher@husc8.harvard.edu (Jean-Marc Rocher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Cambridge.
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:09:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Aug19.160904.14896
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

>>I've heard others on the net comment that rude, uncooperative
>>mail-order dealers sometimes "change their tune" if you tell
>>them that you're plugged into a world-wide computer network
>>and you're going to tell EVERYBODY how badly you're being
>>treated!
>>
>>On Cambridge Photo specifically. I've noticed that their ads
>>are deliberately misleading.
>
>[...]
>
>>					-Alan
>
>I wonder how much good can be done by writing to Pop Photo considering how
>many years Cambridge has been putting multi-page ads in their magazine.
>
>And posting to rec.photo isn't really telling everybody.  There are
>certainly a good deal of us that spend inappropriately large portions of
>our pay checks on photography in this group.  But we are only a small
>percentage of readers of Pop Photo.
>
>What I think would be more interesting would be to try to run a small ad in
>Pop Photo that shows the results of the 5 best and 5 worst mail order firms
>according to our mail order survey.  I'm sure that there are probably a lot
>of angry rec.photo readers out there that wouldn't mind kicking in a few
>bucks a piece to get even with Cambridge, eh?  The problem is that Pop
>Photo would probably refuse the ad because it wouldn't be in the best
>interest of maintaining their advertising revenue.
>
>Ken McFadden        kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com

	How about if someone were to post a letter which listed the 5 best and
5 worst (possibly with reasons for those rankings). If enough of us printed it
out and mailed in to Pop. Photo, they might print it. At the very least, they
would notice that there are many people who are extremely unsatisfied with
the service provided by Cambridge. Well?

					...Jean-Marc Rocher 

"If we took the bones out it wouldn't be crunchy, would it?"
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Subject: Re: What is a color meter? (was Flourencent light question)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 13:15:15 GMT


Thanks to David Traylor for an excellent post on color meters..there
is no question thatt a test roll is the ultimate method..but the color
meter certainly helps you get close to the right filtration...and since
these discontinuouoslight sources need loTS OF WARM-UP TIME, ETC, YOU
HAVE TO PLAN THE SHOOT TO be at a time when the lights have been on for a
couple of hours...and your test had to be done under similar circumstances.

brian
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Subject: Re: Novice with printing problem
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:36:40 GMT

In article <85977@netnews.upenn.edu>, zaidel@muzungu.cis.upenn.edu (Martin J. Zaidel) writes:
|>I have a shot of a wrought iron grill against a cloudy sky.
|>When enlarging it, I use a long exposure to burn in the grill
|>and to bring out the contrast in the clouds.  The problem is
|>that after processing, the finished print looks as if the 
|>black of the grill has bled into the surrounding light regions 
|>of the sky.  As a result, instead of a sharp silhouette, I have
|>a mushy dark blob.

This sounds like flare in the enlarging lens.  If you are not already stopped
down a couple stops from wide open, you might want to try that.  Also look for
gunk or fungus on the lens itself.  There is also a remote posibility that you
are getting vibration in the enlarger that is bluring the image.  Is the rest
of the picture sharp?
--
Jim Feldman
My opinions and ideas are, in fact, not mine at all, but the property of
Digital Equipment Corp. (provided they relate to computers).  Opinions I may
have concerning other subjects are not really mine either, but are the product
of the environment I have been exposed to.  Thus, I am totally without
responsibility for anything I may say or do.