HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@makesys.com (John Turman)
Subject: Nikkor 180mm f2.8
Keywords: opinions
Organization: Make Systems, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:37:29 GMT

I am considering the purchase of a 180mm f2.8 Nikkor to be used
primarily as a lense for both indoor and outdoor portraits mainly
geared toward wedding photography. I'll be using a Bogen 3051
tripod for the camera almost all the time (F3T) and the 3063 mini
fluid head with quick release.

My main questions are, has anyone on the net used one of these
babies for portraiture? If so were you impressed with the results?
Would you reccommend this lense as a primary portrait lense?

I don't want to buy zooms because although their quality is
constantly being upgraded I still find that they do not compare
to prime lenses for sharpness, apochromaticity, distortion etc.
I don't mind lugging a few extra lenses along and changing them
for differing circumstances for the increase in image quality. My
current standby for portraits is a Nikkor 135mm f2.0 AIS. I'm
thinking that the 180 may just give me a little more dramatic
separation of subject to background than the 135 does. Please
E-Mail your responses to john@makesys.comm as sometimes we have
news server problems here. If anyone is interested I'll post a
summary to the net. Thanks in advance to all.

John Turman

Opinions expressed here all sole property of the poster and are
not those of Make Systems, its officers or employees.


-- 
The opinions expressed here are sole property of the author and are not
the opinions of Make Systems or any other entity. What a shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John "Dolphinatic" Turman
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: faust@bagels.enet.dec.com (Stephen R Faust)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 30 JUL 92 12:38:42 EDT


In article <5240@transfer.stratus.com>, savoia@sw.stratus.com (Rick Savoia) writes...
>In article <23349@alice.att.com>, ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul28.131830.1273@hemlock.cray.com> dtj@caffeine.cray.com (Dean Johnson) writes:
>> 
>> > Not to mention that the "amateur" is *generally* at an equipment disadvantage.
>> > I don't know of my ascending amateurs that can afford a 600mm/f2.8 lens!
>> 
>> I'll bet a lot of them can afford to rent one.
>> -- 
>> 				--Andrew Koenig
>> 				  ark@europa.att.com
> 
> 
>You'd be surprised.  Around here, I've inquired about renting lenses.
>You have to have the  money for the rental, plus enough deposit to
>cover the cost of the lens!  That's not readily available in some
>cases and where some of these lenses are in the thousands.....
> 

I've rented a few, and usually all they want is a Visa/MC impression. You
dont have to come up with the cash as the deposit, just have enough credit
line to cover an authorization. The most its cost me is around $60-70 cash
outlay for the actual rental. They give me the MC/VISA slip back when I 
return the lens, so it never gets processed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen R Faust                                         faust@bagels.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.                            faust@bagels.enet.dec.com
Networks and Communications                                   (508) 486-7433
Littleton, MA
============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: monta@image.mit.edu (Peter Monta)
Subject: E-6 processing and 20 oz. tanks
Organization: MIT Advanced Television Research Program
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:17:12 GMT

I've been using the Beseler E-6 kit with success, but I'd like to
process two rolls in a Paterson 20 oz. tank; the mixing instructions
specify multiples of 16 oz.  If I simply dilute to 20 oz., should
the first developer time be extended somewhat?  Would this cause
noticeable color shift?

In general, how do you deal with this 16 oz. vs. 20 oz. annoyance?
(Simplest to buy a 16 oz. tank, or mix 32 oz. of chemistry, I know...)

Peter Monta   monta@image.mit.edu
MIT Advanced Television Research Program
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:04:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Jul27.190446.29677
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul27.184201.4729@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.024009.5134@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>>
>>...  Literally, 'professional' means
>>one who does something for a living or in order to earn money.
>
>In your definition, I don't agree with the "for a living" part.  A Pro could
>derive his/her living from something other then Photography. All the rest I
>do agree with though:
>
>One who does something in order to earn money.

That why I put in the word 'or'.



-- 
==========================================================================
Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: brianwi@microsoft.com (Brian Williamson)
Subject: Re: 8008S and SB24: TTL Matrix-computed Flash photography..
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:42:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: rec

In article <BEN_WEN.92Jul21214904@e40-008-8.mit.edu> ben_wen@athena.mit.edu (Benson Wen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.203305.21873@microsoft.com> brianwi@microsoft.com (Brian Williamson) writes:
>
>   Also, I realize that it is not very helpful.  The short answer to the original
>   question is - "The center segment is the foreground, usually, but the camera
>   doesn't know for sure.".  An autofocus camera could use info from the focus
>   module to make a better guess, but as far as I know the Nikons don't do that.
>
>Hmm, what do you mean by "use info from the focus module to make a
>better guess?"  I've always wondered if, knowing the focal length of
>the lens, and the pitch of the helicoid, or design of the IF floaters,
>could the camera know the distance to the subject?  Does it even need
>that?  How does Canon's DePth program work?

Well, I was just thinking of it as "more information".  Nikon could have added
the information "center is in focus" or "center is out of focus" to the
exposure values for the five meter elements.  For example, a picture which has
the center element one stop darker than the surrounding elements may classify
as "backlit subject" if you are focusing on the center, and as "something else"
if you have focused to the side, then re-composed the picture with the darker
out-of-focus area in the center.

Of course, if you had more than one element, such as with the AF Minoltas
you could then get relative distances, which might help even more.

Every camera I've ever seen already has a fair idea of how far away the subject
is focus is.  After all, lenses do have distance scales.  

No, I don't think knowing how far away the subject is helps TTL flash.  TTL
flash does not work by changing its instantaneous power output: it works by
blasting away at full power, then watching the light bounce off the film until
it thinks it has seen enough.  All "flash compensation" does is change what
"enough" is.

I don't know anything about Canon's DePth program. 

>
>Old Canon FD cameras had an optional module you could buy to mount on
>the front of the lens that would measure distance to subject and relay
>that to the flash.
>
>In a similar vein, the Canon 10s uses the selected the focus mark
>to weight exposure.  I wonder if the Minolta xi's do a similar thang?
>
>-Ben
>--
>

The Minolta i cameras base their f-stop/shutter speed choice partly on what
the focusing system says.  I once stood on a ridge and took a shot down into
the valley using Programmed exposure - it chose F 5.6.  I moved a little to
the right to get part of a nearby tree into the shot - it immediately
switched to F 13 (yes, that's 13).

I'm pretty sure the exposure value itself is also weighted. 

>|| Benson Wen
>|| ben_wen@athena.mit.edu
>|| queeph@hing.lcs.mit.edu


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:21:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na

From article <5203@transfer.stratus.com>, by savoia@sw.stratus.com (Rick Savoia):
>>Do any of these "want-to-be pros" give any thought to the fact that they may
>>be interfering with the work of real pros - i.e. guys who are trying to make
>>a living, not just having fun? If I were a photographer who's livelyhood
>>depended on getting good shots I'd be very annoyed (to put it mildly) at these
>>guys getting under my feet. 
> 
> 
> Isn't that kind of like saying 'Do any of these want-to-be-programmers
> give any thought to the fact that they may be interfering with the 
> work of real programmers by going to school and learning programming?'
> In my opinion, 'amateurs' need training to become 'pros'.  If the get
> locked out of events in which they could learn to become more 
> 'professional' how would their skills advance?

Yeah, right, and those who want to reporter has to go to school to 
learn political correctness before they are allowed to report, right?

I think people should be allowed to take picture in any fashion they
prefer.  Taking picture is more of a art than programming.  Going to classes
would definitely help in the technical side, but many of us are smart
enough to figure out how to use a camera (even an F4s) ourselves, thank you.
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: EV units
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:52:28 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Jul23.002433.8863@odin.corp.sgi.com> donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis) writes:

>The EV system was intended to let you compute exposure without thinking
>about film speed.  EV 1 gives you f/1 at 1 second for a specific quantity
>of light that is based on the film speed.  When the film speed setting
>is changed, the amount of light it takes to get EV 1 will change, but
>the exposure will still be f/1 at 1 second.
>
>- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
>donl@sgi.com

Donl meant to say that EV *0* is f/1 and 1 second, and also that it was
intended to let you compute exposure without thinking about *f-stops or
shutter speeds*; the EV you must set does depend on film speed.

  -- David Jacobson
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lens shading (Re: Schneider and Rodenstock lenses)
Keywords: lens quality
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:26:17 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Geoff Allen writes:

>Doesn't anybody wear *hats* any more?  They work quite nicely for
>shading that ol' lens.

But, Geoff, most hats that I see are way too small to fit a lens and
not large enough to be worn by the entire view camera.  Besides 
which, I'm afraid that if I did find one that would fit the 
view camera, it might restrict movements.  ???

:-)

Barry

P.s.  OK, I realize this is silly.  But it was either this or get
	  involved in the MF vs. AF discussion yet again and I don't think
	  that I have the stomach for that.  ;-)



-- 


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:23:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Jul24.184231.20250@clark.edu>, gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
> In article <1992Jul24.170312.14059@aus.intel.com> dennisg@aus.intel.com (dennis grifith X64683) writes:
> >
> >I always thought a 'pro' was someone who made more than $500.00 a year from
> >photography.  At least that is what I was told it was for painters (artists).
> 
> Def: Professional (noun): one who has acquired special skill in or knowledge
>                           and mastery of something.
> 
> I don't know of anyone who can truely claim to have "mastery" of photography,
> so I guess that rules out all the so called pros.
> 

In my dictionary (Websters) a professional is defined as:

(one) participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of
endeavor often engaged in by amateurs.

Seems like that covers what most of us mean by professional doesn't it?
 
===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: chucksi@stc.comm.mot.com (Chuckorama)
Subject: SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT ISSUE: What Camera/lens?
Organization: none
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:10:08 GMT

Kind of a weird question, but if anyone out there has seen any of the Sports
Illustrated videos of their swimsuit issue phoography shoots, I was curious 
what cameras (My guess: F1) and more particularly what lens (some of them were
HUGE) it looked like they were using...I'm sort of a rookie to photography, but
I love the contrast and clarity of the pictures, and the way the backgrounds
were clear, but flat.

				Chuck
-- 
*-----------------------*------------------------------------*
*  The Chuckster        * "Hey, Myrtle. Don't go puttin' yer *
*  chucksi@comm.mot.com *  lips on that thang!"              *
*-----------------------*------------------------------------*
From: kale@usc.edu (Nitin Kale)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: slik tripod question
Date: 21 Jul 1992 11:30:46 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

 does anyone have comments about the slik AF tripods like AF112 etc ?

is it possible to use the AF head on a bogen tripod like 3001 ?
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lens shading (Re: Schneider and Rodenstock lenses)
Keywords: lens quality
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:40:21 GMT
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Distribution: na
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA


In article <1992Jul27.165255.19217@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com>,
kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden) writes:

|> Alright, but what do you guys do with your hair after you take the hat off?
|> Whenever I wear a hat for a while, I suffer from "hat hair".  I can't
comb the
|> effect away and people can tell I was wearing a hat until I wash my hair the
|> next morning.  You're just trying to scare me away from ever trying
large format
|> aren't you?  8^)

Hat hair.  Yes, hat hair.  You see, to be a large format photographer,
you not only have to be willing to lug all that junk around, and spend
hours taking pictures where other people can just snap and then leave,
you have to gain an appreciation for your personal appearance with Hat
Hair.

Part of the whole large-format scenario is also not being bothered by
what other people think.  Remember -- most people have no idea what a
view camera is, but they sure recognize the bellows, and will be
reasonably sure that this camera must be "one of those old-fashioned
kind".  Some of them will get curious and start asking questions.
They will be so confused about why anyone would want to use such a big,
old-fashioned, clumsy camera, that they won't *notice* your hat hair.

I've been asked a lot of questions, but never about my hat hair.  Wear
it proud!  :)

|> >"We're seeing Buicks the size of prominences!"
|>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> Is that as in definition 3:  "a mass of gas resembling a cloud that
arises from
|> the chromosphere of the sun"?

Yes.  You're the second to say anything about the quote; I consider the
whole thing to have been a dismal failure, and am hereby revoking the
quote.

Don't you guys watch Nova, on PBS?  In the "eclipse" episode, one of
the excited astronomers said "We're seeing prominences the size of
Buicks!"  I understand the excitement of the moment, and how it can put
your verbal skills in the toilet, but considering the actual size of
prominences, I thought this was just a bit silly.  I was surprised that
Nova didn't edit it out, and was embarassed for the no-doubt
intelligent and otherwise articulate astronomer.  I can relate, though,
having spouted my own share of silly comments in my day.

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@flash.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: CWO no longer carries HOYA
Reply-To: jchen@flash.UUCP (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 00:02:42 GMT

In the past 6 months, I have done quite a few transactions with
CWO, and including a few returns. Overall, there is no major problem.

The only thing that I am unhappy about is my filters purchases.
In two separate orders, I specified Hoya filters. Without acknowledgement,
they sent me Tiffin in stead. I returned them for exchange (called the
customer service and paid the UPS at my expenses). That was three months
ago. During this time, they told me a couple times that they would ship
the "next" week.

They finally told me today that they no longer carry Hoya due to "change
of distributor." They could either resend me Tiffin or credit my account.

Although I am not very happy about it. But I would like to give them
the benefit of doubt. They probably did not intentionally lie to me.

C. Jason Chen 
jchen@flash.bellcore.com
Xref: sparky rec.photo:12806 misc.forsale:21720
From: dq7j@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale
Subject: Canon TX forsale (lower price)
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:02:31 EDT
Distribution: misc,rec
Organization: Cornell University

I have a Canon TX camera with a Canon 1.8 50 mm lens, camera strap and manual
flash. I would like to sell everything for $130 plus shipping. Payment would
be by money order, certified check or COD ($4.00 extra). Please make me a	
reasonable and serious offer.
Eugenio
dq7j@cornella.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: faust@bagels.enet.dec.com (Stephen R Faust)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 31 JUL 92 11:29:18 EDT


In article <z2pm7sa.hchong@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes...
>From article <23349@alice.att.com>, by ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig):
>> In article <1992Jul28.131830.1273@hemlock.cray.com> dtj@caffeine.cray.com (Dean Johnson) writes:
>> 
>>> Not to mention that the "amateur" is *generally* at an equipment disadvantage.
>>> I don't know of my ascending amateurs that can afford a 600mm/f2.8 lens!
>> 
>> I'll bet a lot of them can afford to rent one.
> 
>Rent?  Where?  How?  Please give specific details.  Thanks. 

I dont know if you could find a 600mm 2.8 (didnt know there even was one!,
is there?),  but, there are many places that will rent the high end long/fast
lenses. Lens and Repo in NY, Dels Camera in Santa Barbara, Sammys
(whats left of it) in LA, etc.

BTW: I DO know what FLAME ON means! I just didnt catch the sarcasm that you
     threw in, not reading your previous replies to that topic. My sincere
     apologies.. We are on the same wavelength..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen R Faust                                         faust@bagels.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.                            faust@bagels.enet.dec.com
Networks and Communications                                   (508) 486-7433
Littleton, MA
============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: E-6 in Jobo
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:28:16 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <12kT03pA4afw00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman) writes:

> Robert Claeson writes:
> 
> >Now, was it the Kodak Hobby-Pac that didn't include a stabilizer at all?
> 
> The JOBO E-6 kits don't.

Who makes the Jobo chemicals? Jobo's headquarter in Germany doesn't know
about them and they aren't listed in their international catalogue. Jobo
in Germany thought that Jobo in the U.S. bought them from somewhere and
sold them under their own name.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Focal length rip-off. Coincidence?
Summary: Deception?
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:28:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <18590@drutx.ATT.COM> chuck@drutx.ATT.COM (LucianoC) writes:

[someone writes:]
>>>Can anything be done here? Is there a US Government "Weights and Measures"
>>>office which is supposed to maintain strict truth in advertising? 
>
>Have you ever put a ruler to a 2 by 4?
>I think they call it a nominal dimension!

Yes, but it's exactly specified, it just isn't 2 inches x 4 inches.
(Originally, 2 x 4 were the dimensions before the last stage of trimming,
or something like that.)  A 2x4 will always be 1.75 x 3.5 inches, to a high
degree of accuracy (if I remember the numbers right).

"Nominal" does not mean "free to vary haphazardly."

I think we _do_ have a "truth in advertising" issue here.  One way out of
it would be to give tolerances (e.g., 50mm +- 10%).  But even then, the
government has been known to crack down if the tolerances don't reflect a
bona fide statistical spread (e.g., if all your 50mm +- 10% lenses were
exactly 45mm).

Anyone care to call the FTC?
-- 
==========================================================================
Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: chachra@ecf.toronto.edu (CHACHRA Debbie)
Subject: Contact Sheets - Thanks!
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:24:18 GMT

Thanks to all of you for your help with doing contact sheets.  I certainly 
feel much better equipped.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Debbie Chachra            <chachra@bullet.ecf.utoronto.ca>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The surest defence against evil is extreme individualism, originality
     of thinking, whimsicality, even, if you will, eccentricity....Evil is
     a sucker for solidity.  It always goes for big numbers, for confident 
     granite, for ideological purity, for drilled armies and balanced 
     sheets.
                                                  - Joseph Brodsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo