HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjg@nwu.edu (Michael J Graven)
Subject: Re: Wanted: A light table or slide sorting recommendations
Originator: mjg@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: mjg@nwu.edu (Michael J Graven)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:25:42 GMT

Jake Livni (jake@bony1.bony.com) writes:

> The cheapest [loupe] I know of is just to use a 50mm lens from a 35 mm SLR.
> Point the accesory side of the lens towards the slide and look through the 
> "camera" end of the lens.

Ick.  Grit your teeth and buy an ordinary, but decent loupe.  For simple
sorting, and to eliminate the most egregious of technical errors, Peak makes
a simple two-element one -- I think it's 8x, but I could be mistaken -- that
is fine for rough editing.  You can find it at any reasonably-sized store; 
if they know what EPN is, they probably have a few lying around somewhere.

I wouldn't use it to focus on groundglass, though. :)

Oh, and I've been much less than impressed with the corresponding Agfa
loupe, which to my eye had more distortion and stretching of the (optical)
truth than most latter-day political campaigns.

> Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com

-- 
-Michael                 "This confirms my longtime belief that while it is 
mjg@nwu.edu              possible to teach an old dog new tricks, it is much 
                         cheaper to buy a new dog."            --John Franks
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:36:07 GMT

In article <xxhmg_b.hchong@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>From article <1992Jul24.041623.15860@PacBell.COM>, by jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria):
>> Your second point has validity insofar that a press pass is
>> required.  However, if it looks *official*, you can get by
>> most lines of security.  Case in point.  A friend of mine
>> sent something like $50 to an organization (IFPO?) and he
>> received a very official looking Membership Card.  He has
>> strapped his F4 & 8008 Nikons with his 300mm lens on one
>> body and a zoom on the other, monopod, photo vest and his
>> Membership Card pinned to his vest and has been able to
>> shoot with the *press* folks at the Oakland A's/San
>> Francisco Giants/49er's/concerts without anyone ever
>> stopping him. (I believe he pasted a passport photo on the
>> card and re-laminated it.)
>
>So we need maybe a camera jacket, a 2nd camera, a 300/2.8 or any non-mirror
>lens with a big, big, front element, some official-looking badge with
>your photo.  Wonder if we can have a survey on how well it works?
>
>p.s. F4s = $1500, 8008s = $700, 300/2.8 AF = $3000, and more.  After those
>     kind of money, they better let me in! 
>      
I was rather intrigued when my friend told me his story in
getting into to games and concerts.  As you probably know,
the press/sports photographers have sections around a baseball
field that they are allowed to roam freely.  My friend Bob
said that he just hung around all the guys with monster
lenses hanging on their shoulders and when the guards started
to let them in, he just "blended" in.  The guards sort of just
eyed everyone and their only concern was that you had a
"badge" on and that it was visible.  Bob noticed that some
people were stopped when a badge was not visible and of course
some were not let in because they didn't have a pass.  Also
Bob pointed out as you did above, hey if a guy walks in with
5K or more of equipment, he must be legit.  The guards don't
really care, if you look official, they just wave you in,
at least according to my friend Bob.

-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:52:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.023123.4690@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.041623.15860@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>
>>The key word is *primary* source of income.  I work full
>>time for Pacific Bell and I occassionaly shoot weddings,
>>retirements and other events.  I recently sold my first
>>photograph as opposed to selling my services and I consider
>>myself an advanced amateur, NOT a pro.  My income from
>>my photographic services do not comprise a majority of my
>>income.
>
>No, it isn't.  If that were the criterion, professional writers would
>be almost nonexistent (except for journalists).
>About 1/3 of my income is from writing and I'm _definitely_ a professional
>writer (just ask the IRS!). 
>
>The criterion used by various governmental agencies is that an activity
>is a business if it makes money or has a reasonable expectation and intent
>of doing so.
>
When speaking of the IRS, then anything goes with them. 
Income earned is any source of income.  If that were the
criteria, than I am a garage/yard sale professional.  I
have had a garage sales years past and I made monies. 

I believe each profession has it's standards and money is
not always the criteria to measure your qualifications as a
professional.  Simply selling a picture or shooting a few
weddings a year hardly qualifies someone as a professional.
-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: levine@xerox.com (Joel Levine)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: tidbits on photokina from Shutterbug
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:56:46 GMT
Reply-To: levine@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox PARC

The Aug Shutterbug mag gives the following "tidbits" on the upcomming photokina

- Leica R7: similar to R6.2 with a new automated fill-flash system
- New amateur films and a cassette jointly developed by Kodak, Fuji, Canon, Nikon and Minolta
- Contax will show two new SLR cameras, one is all mechanical and one is an updated replacement for the 167MT. 
- Hasselblad will have a new digital imaging system with a new transmitter, scanner , workstation, software
- Olympus will upgrade the IS 1 to a new model (IS 2000 in Europe, IS 2 in the US)
- Maniya will introduce some new KL lenses for the RB67 and will show a new model 645 camera
- Rollei will have some new lenses for the 6008 with a full 1/1000 shutter speed.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: freudent@vlsi3.ultra.nyu.edu (Eric Freudenthal)
Subject: Re: Rangefinder calibration
Organization: /a/users/freudent/.organization
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:44:19 GMT

Before attempting recalibration of the rangefinder, I would check the
calibration of the scale.  I would suggest "bracketing" your focus by
shooting a bunch of test shots of a distant object (object open) and
noting the sequence of scale markings.

Good luck.  I have succeeded at this in the past.
--
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
				Eric Freudenthal
				NYU Ultracompter Lab
				715 Broadway, 10th floor
				New York, NY  10003
				
				Phone:(212) 998-3345 work
				      (718) 789-4486 home
				Email:freudent@lab.ultra.nyu.edu
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 20:14:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Jul24.183810.20077@clark.edu>, gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
> In article <1992Jul24.175754.25415@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
> >
> >This is a generic flame - not really intended for any particular poster....
> >
> >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. 
> 
> I think that is total garbage. There are quite a few other Photogs at most
> events that such an idea would be ludicrous.  A photog at the event wouldn't
> even give it a thought, and would consider it a part of the job.  What would
> they care, just as long as they get there shots. In what way would that
> "annoy" you. There is such a thing as Photgrapher Courtesy you know. Now
> I can understand if the gatecrashers weren't practicing Photgrapher Courtesy,
> but thats another thing altogether, and are few and far between in the
> photographer community (at least I like to think so :-)
> 
> Please, this isn't a FLAME, so don't treat it as such, I just get excited
> sometimes with hot subjects such as this, and I consider the term
> "want-to-be pros" to be quite derogatory.

It was meant to be derogatory. There are reasons why press passes are needed
to cover some events. Just because a person can afford "pro" looking equipment
(read expensive) doesn't give them the right to get under the feet of the
guys whose JOB it is to get pictures. The guy with the Nikon F1 and 600/4 lens
has just as much right to be there as the guy with the Instamatic - and has
just as much reason. Why doesn't everyone go to the ball game and sit on the
edge of the field - the view is a lot better than from the stands! Why doesn't
the whole audience at a concert go backstage to take pictures? If a person
wants to PRETEND to be a pro to inflate his/her own ego then that is fine.
Owning a formula 1 racecar won't get me in a Grand Prix race, and owning
an expensive photo outfit shouldn't get anyone into the Press arena. The
Press has privileges (and responsibilities) not enjoyed by the general
public. IFPO and similar outfits who abase these privileges and
responsibilities are IMHO reprehensible.
===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Leica screwmount lenses as enlarger lenses
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:33:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


  I've heard for some time that some camera lenses can also be used as
enlarger lenses.  Recently I got a leica 3 and a 50mm f3.5 leitz Elmar lens 
and found that the lens screws perfectly into my enlarger (Durst
M601).  I set the lens to infinity, stopped down to f5.6 and made a
print with the same exposure time I would use with my regular lens,
and the print came out fine - it was quite sharp, even though the
old Elmar lens is slightly foggy.

  I was wondering if anybody else has used leica screwmount lenses as
enlarger lenses and know what the exact story is.  If I get a 50mm
summacron lens, would the superb quality of this lens be preserved
when I use it for enlarging?  And dare I use the f2 aperture?  I don't
see any enlarger lenses available today with aperture larger than
f2.8.
From: stevek@gobi.UUCP (Stephen Kogge)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: E-6 in Jobo
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:25:22 GMT
Organization: Underwater Imaging


	I recently switched from a Unicolor drum processor to a Jobo + Lift
and it was worth it. I had both a Temp controlled water bath and a
thermostatic water mixer so constant temp was not a concern, filling
and draining repeatably was a concern. Splash (on me) and re-use
contamination were a concern.
	Anyhow Kodak recently changed their E6 6 step process and neither
these new times nor the Jobo suggested times agreed with my times.
	I went with the Jobo times and was not pleased. I called both Kodak
and Jobo and both essentialy suggested I use whatever times I had before.
Jobo added two hints. With the reversal bath and Fuji film use 100% solution
but with Kodak film use a 60% solution, if you do a push process then the
color dev time is 6 min.
	Both emphasized that the final rinse not be done on my spools and
not in my drum - seems it leaves something behind.


  My chart - works for me with water in Maryland (in Montgomery County)
  Kodak E6 6 step gallon kit - 575ml for 5 rolls == 32 rolls per gallon
	no re-use == no contamination of stock solutions
			all times in min:sec temp is 38C

Solution		Kodak film	Fuji film
Prewarm (dry)		5		5
prewash (water)		1		1
1st dev			7		7	push/pull use kodak chart
wash			2:30		2:30
reversal bath		2 (60% sol)	2 (100% sol)
color dev		4		4	if push == 6 min
pre-bleach		2		2
bleach			6		6
fixer			4		4
wash			6		6
final rinse		1		1

	Glad to see other times from other Jobo users.

	PS I switched from other "3 step" E6 systems and was amazed at the
difference how clear the base stock is with the kodak 6 step vs the others -
I will not switch back.

	Any suggested times for Cibachrome / Jobo process with a
Saunders/LPL 670DXL Dichroic color head  El-Nikor 50mm 1:2.8 lens
would be nice. Last time I used it as a color enlarger was with Ektaflex.
Too bad Polaroid did not do the "right thing" and come out with their
own version after killing off Ektaflex.
Base CMY corrections for this system (if any), expose times + f stop vs
mag charts...
	This forum is a perfect place to pass around base 
enlarger/times/stops/mag/CMY (offsets) charts.

	Not looking forward to calibrating another color system :-)

	Steve Kogge
	stevek@uimage.com
From: moreaux@litsun24.epfl.ch (Michel Moreaux)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: 4"x5" enlarger or 6x7 enlarger : questions (Jobo, De Vere)
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:50:24 GMT
Reply-To: moreaux@litsun.epfl.ch
Distribution: rec
Organization: Laboratoire d'informatique technique


I am planning to buy a medium format camera. I am hesitating between a
Mamiya RZ67 and a Sinar F2. I know that one day or another I will have
the two camera but for now I will only buy one (financial reason ;-).

Actually, the problem is the enlarger. I only know two 4"x5" enlargers :
De Vere 504 and Jobo 7451. The De Vere is too much expensive
(professionnal stuff) but offers condenser lighting. So, here my first
question :

  In Black and White, is there any significant difference for the
  sharpness between diffused light and condensed (I mean with
  condenser) light ? I mean is there any unacceptable loss of quality ?

This point must be taken into account since the Jobo enlarger only
offers diffused light.
Now, the second question for those who own a Jobo enlarger :

  Is there any vibration problem (head stability) with the Jobo
  enlarger since there is a ventilator inside the head (like the De
  Vere, I assumed) and the column does not seem vibration-resistant ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Moreaux,                           | "Ceux qui ne savent rien en savent
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne  |  toujours tout autant que ceux qui
Departement d'Informatique                |  n'en savent pas plus qu'eux"
Laboratoire d'Informatique Technique      |                  P. Dac.
EL-Ecublens                               |___________________________________
CH-1015 Lausanne                           
Phone # : (21) 693-46-72,   e-mail : moreaux@litsun.epfl.ch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Subject: Re: fiberglass/wood sinks for home darkrooms
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:35:33 GMT

In article <Brwtxp.32t@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, imprint@watserv1.waterloo.edu (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper) writes:

|>Has anyone tried doing this? I don't imagine the chemicals would eat
|>away at fiberglassed wood, assuming one keeps the thing in a reasonable
|>state of cleanliness.
I've got some plans to do this sort of thing.  Basicly they use marine grade
plywood and epoxy paint, plus polyurethane caulk for the seams.  I'd stay away
from particle board for ANYTHING that might get wet.  They use internal bracing
for the corners.  Check out your local REAL bookstore or camera store.  The
book is red 8 1/2x 11 and is titled something like "20 projects for the home
darkroom".  If you need a real ISBN, mail me and i'll send it along.  The book
is pretty detailed and includes shopping lists for when you're off to the HW
store.

|>And with regards to a temperature mixer, I want to avoid buying a professional
|>one that's gonna cost several hundred dollars. Are normal household tap or
|>shower one-shot deals consistent enough once you set them.

Those temp controlled shower units are only accurate to about +/- 10deg F. and
seem pretty slow to respond. Could be a pretty big swing, but better than
nothing I suppose.  A cheap way out would be a "Y" mixer with 3 valves.  You
set the water temp with the two mixing valves and then control flow with the
third, downstream valve.

To me, the only real advantage to temp control units, would be if they are also
pressure regulated.  That way if someone flushes the WC while you're washing
your negs, you don't get that "lovely" effect on your emulsion.  Unfortunatly,
that puts you in the $300-$400 range.

Now if someone could just come up with an easy way to extract a lot of disolved
air out of water, so the bubbles would quit depositing themselves on whatever
I'm washing...
jimf
--
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. 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky)
Subject: Re: Focal length rip-off. Coincidence?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:16:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.165135.25686@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
> ....stuff deleted...            But ALL the lenses are -5%. There are
>no instances of lenses being significantly faster or longer than advertised
>but many cases of slower, shorter lenses - often by more than 5%. 
> 
>There are 3 possibilities here:
>1 - The lens manufactureres are lying.
>2 - Pop. Photog, don't know how to measure lenses
>3 - We are looking at a very unlikely (but just possible) statistical effect.
>
>Can anything be done here? Is there a US Government "Weights and Measures"
>office which is supposed to maintain strict truth in advertising? If I get
>a lens which is 5% slow and 5% short, do I get a 5% price discount? Inquiring
>minds want to know!
>

the best explanation sounds to be 1)...i don't know if i'd call
it "lying"...maybe "stretching the truth a bit to keep things
in accordance with industry nominal values"

it does make it a bit more convenient to compare 70-210 zooms
rather than a 68-205 to a 72-203.

but, i DO want that 5% discount.

duane
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ben_wen@athena.mit.edu (Benson Wen)
Subject: Re: 8008S and SB24: TTL Matrix-computed Flash photography..
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<1992Jul20.203305.21873@microsoft.com>
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:49:12 GMT

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?

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
--

|| Benson Wen
|| ben_wen@athena.mit.edu
|| queeph@hing.lcs.mit.edu
From: leonglaw@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Lawrence Leong)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:32:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Leaving the film leader outside the cassette (was Re: EOS Elan)
Organization: HP Singapore
Newsgroups: rec.photo

In rec.photo, goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis) writes:

|In <52330004@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com> leonglaw@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Lawrence Leong) writes:
|
[stuff deleted]

|
|>Give the tongue a bit of time to reach about the front of the shutter, then 
|>yank out the battery pack.  Open the back and there you have it.
|
|>Cautions:  Be sure to reload the battery pack and turn on the camera and allow
|>	   it to reset BEFORE loading the next roll, otherwise the camera will
|>	   continue the rewinding operation on the fresh roll!
|
|>Disclaimer:  I don't know what are side-effects of yanking out the battery 
|>	     pack.  Proceed with caution!
|
|It's a bit easier to just open the back instead of taking out the
|battery pack.  Then there's no need to worry about the next roll being
|rewound.
|--
|Al Goldis           alan-goldis@uiowa.edu
|"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
|                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt

..except that there's a chance that:

  - over eager hands will open the back too soon, and there goes the roll!

     or

  - slow reaction hands will open the back *after* the tongue has retracted.

the 2nd is the lesser evil.  Maybe just get/make a film extractor. :-)


lawrence
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:54:55
Organization: CSUA/UCB
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: hchong@netcom.com's message of Thu, 30 Jul 92 17:31:41 GMT


    With today's desktop publishing on PC, all you need is a cheap
    laser printer, a 386 PC, a word publisher like Word Perfect (or
    other more powerful word processors), you can easily put out a
    free paper (10 copies?  distributed to you friends and
    relatives?).  What is more you need for you to be as legitimate as
    the state's largest paper with circulation of 500,000?  Is there
    is registry of newspaper publisher?  What?

I don't know whether police depts. have a formal definition of a
legit newspaper but I can assure you from experience that the stunt
you describe doesn't work.  I tried shooting some Berkeley riots
for a xeroxed (later tabloid) newspaper around distributed for free around
here with a circulation of several thousand, but the cops weren't 
having any.  It didn't help that this paper was very critical of the
cops.  

I don't know why police allow press access to closed-off areas rather
than keeping everyone out as I'm sure they'd like to.  I'm under the
impression that it's because of the First Amendment (i.e. the riot is
a news event, and keeping journalists from covering it from the best
locations would illegally limit freedom of the press), but would be
interested to hear from someone who knows the facts about this.