HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: renata@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Daniel Delgado)
Subject: Instant Slide film ?? Diazo ..
Summary: where to get?
Keywords: slide film diazo
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:26:32 GMT

A long time ago ... I got some film that I believe was called 
Diazo (sp)... neat stuff... It developed via heat!! and was instant.
I think I ordered it from a company that was advertising in Petersons
Photographic Magazine.  It was at least 7 years ago.  Does anybody 
know if and where I can get this stuff?

                                          Dan
i

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Old Images
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:28:24 GMT

In article <3724@eastman.UUCP>, barnick@mesa.Kodak.COM (William M Barnick x73638) writes:
...
> Getting to the point ... I came across some very old "transparency" images.
> The images were of industrial United States and China.  I would guess that
> they were somewhere in the time frame of the 1930's,  but I may be off
> by a decade.  In any event,  the images were in the form of two glass
> plates sandwiched together.  The two pieces of glass were held together
> by a thin strip of tape which went all the way around the outter edge.
> The image plate size was about 2.75 x 3.5 inches.  Most of this images
> appeared to be originals and professionally done.  The images of China
> were in color.  The industrial United States stuff was mostly B&W.
> 
> I bought several of the image glass plates just because they looked so
> interesting.  Does anyone know anything about these types of images ???
> Does anyone collect these images ???  What was this type of image used
> for ???
> 

Lantern Slides. Greatest use would have been in movie theaters ( anyone remember
them :-) ) to advertise the upcomming shows. The size is a bit odd, all the ones
I have seen are 3 1/4" square. The ones you have are close to quarter-plate.
They may in fact be original reversals, with a cover glass. Look very carefully
around the tape, you may find labels etc that will give you a clue.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson)
Subject: Re: Pentax Auto 110 info wanted
Organization: Mendelson Computer Consulting
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 17:02:10 GMT

bower@hfsi.uucp (Michael Bower Comm. ) asks:

>I have a chance to get a Pentax Auto 110 system here in my area.  This is
>a 110 camera that is basically a miniature SLR with several lenses.
>
>Can anybody shed any light on this setup.  Is it a good camera? bad
>camera? whatever?  I know the limitations of 110 film but aside from
>that, it looks like a nice camera for keeping in ones pocket.  (It 
>is bulkier than the MINOX camera but the film is slightly larger
>and easier (and cheaper) to get.

They are excelent cameras with good lenses. Their major drawback is the
110 film. At one time it was available in almost Verichrome Pan (an
excelent but underrated film), ektachrome, kodachrome, and kodacolor.
Agfa and others also made film in this size. As far as I can tell the
only film you can still get fresh is kodacolor and maybe agfacolor.

The cameras have one major defect. There is a small pin on the winding
gear that breaks off. The symptoms are that the camera works normally
for the first few shots on a roll and it winds perfectly without film.
With film in the camera it will work fine until about the fith or so
exposure, then it will refuse to wind, or if it is forced, it will wind
but the film will  not move.

The repair is quite easy, but I can't describe it in writing. If you
get the camera make sure that you can return it if it is defective.

There are no diaphragm blades (f stop).  Two blades do double duty for
appeture and shutter. Make sure they work as they corrode easily and
the camera is (now due to no more parts) unrepairable. Make sure there
has never been any battery leakage. 

Always use PX76 instead of A76 batteries.


Since minox film is now about $8.00 a roll and the Acmel spooling kit
fizeled, this camera is much more attractive.

Geoff.
-- 
Copyright (C) 1992, Geoffrey S. Mendelson.              All Rights Reserved.
Except for usenet followups, may not be reproduced without permsission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  Computer Software Consulting    |                   |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey S. Mendelson        Ask me about UNIX(tm) based imaging systems.
geoffrey@mendelson.com            
(215) 242-8712
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Stieglitz collection
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:37:32 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


I miswrote:

> They were, considering that Stieglitz lived in New York City and in the
> southwest.


Of course I was referring to O'Keeffe .


eugene kowaluk
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: glp@tfs.com (Gregory Pease)
Subject: Re: AGFA 25 APX & Rodinal
Keywords: AGFA
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:57:30 GMT

In article <5867@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 6500gw@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Gary Wang) writes:
>Hi, I just read an artical in outdoor photography
>about agfa 25 apx and rodinal.Has anyone use it before ?
>How does it compare to TMX 100 ?
>
>The auther mention the dilution 1+50 to get the
>finest grain possible ? Does that work for TMAX also?

In general, I have found that increased dillution results in a slight 
INCREASE in perceived graininess, with an increase in film speed, 
acutance and a slight increase in B+F density.  Rodinal seems to kick 
the high density regions of the negative a bit, giving a bit more 
highlight separation, and giving negatives the appearance of higher 
overall contrast.  The brightness in the resulting prints is really 
nice, though sometimes requiring a bit more printing manipulation than 
I'd expect from the original scene.  

APX400 in Rodinal yields pointillistic imgaes that I had only dreamt
about before, being an avid HP5/HP5+ user for the last 12 years.  I
have finally found the grain I have been seeking!  (The stuff is really
grainy, though faster than other ISO400 films I've tried.)

HP5/HP5+ in Rodinal is a poor combination.  There is a big reduction in
film speed.  (EI 160)

FP4 in Rodinal 1:50 is beautiful.  (EI125, 13min, 20C, 2inv/30sec, one
minute presoak).  I haven't tried FP4+ yet.

PanF+, with a true ISO of 50, is a stop faster than APX25, *very* high
resolution, invisible grain and a lovely scale.  Rodinal is a good soup
for this stuff, too, though one has to beware of over exposure to
prevent highlight blocking.

I can't speak about Tmax anything, 'cause I just don't like the stuff,
though I've seen others get wonderful results with it in Rodinal.
-- 
Gregory Pease    | "Is that a real poncho, 
glp@tfs.com      | I mean is that a Mexican poncho,
510/704-3133     | or is that a Sears poncho?"  -Zappa
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: x-ray harmful to your negatives
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:17:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.191153.22591@walter.bellcore.com>, jkc@pyuxf.uucp (25312-choe) writes:
> Everytime my camera and the negatives are scanned at the airport
> security terminals I wonder if the x-ray would dammage the
> negatives.  Often, I read on manuals that the negatives should not
> be scanned by security devices and I have not had any problems yet
> having them developed.  Can the x-ray in the scanner really damage
> your negatives?

I think this is covered in the FAQ list, but briefly:
X-rays CAN cause fogging of film, but are unlikley to cause any damage
to normal speed films (say ISO 400 or less) under normal circumstances
(with ony one or two passes through the machine). High speed film (eg 
ISO 3200) should probably NOT be put through a scanner. You can demand
hand examination of film in the USA (but not necessarily elsewhere in the
world) and I have never had any problems with this proceedure (in the USA).
Summary: request hand examination whenever convenient. If your film goes
through the scanner, don't loose any sleep over it.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Repair Contax I?
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:16:35 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

v462etnn@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (David L Anderson) wrote:
> I just inherited my grandfather's Contax I and I'd like to get it in
> working order again.

While these things certainly ought to be repairable - they were a standard
photojournalist's tool for quite a while - from what I've read about them,
you shouldn't expect to have a normally usable camera after you get it back.
Their design was mechanically far more complex and failure-prone than an
early Leica; to the extent that some people spent a LOT of money adapting
Contax lenses to work on Leica bodies (Leitz's early attempts at making
fast lenses were pretty dreadful, while the Zeiss ones were excellent).
One British writer described the Contax shutter mechanism as "a masterpiece
of misplaced ingenuity".

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wall@mcm.com (Steve Wall)
Subject: Building a darkroom
Organization: Mellon Capital Management Corp. San Francisco, CA.
Distribution: us
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:32:13 GMT

I'm considering some remodeling projects for my house, and one
of the ideas I have is to add on a room that can be used as a
darkroom. I've done some black & white developing/printing/etc.
and have an interest in doing the same in color. A darkroom
at home would allow me to more easily pursue these interests.

I'd appreciate any information and/or experiences related to
darkrooms at home. Do you have a darkroom in their home? Did
you build it yourself? Do you do color and/or black & white
work? How much did the equipment cost (enlarger, trays, 
pumps, etc)? What do you consider to be the minimum space
required for a one person darkroom? Any items/configurations
you "wish" you had?

Any other information would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
-- 

Steve Wall (wall@mcm.com)
Mellon Capital Management Corporation
San Francisco, CA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Olympus SuperZoom 3000 reliability and suitability
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:43:16 GMT

I am in the market for a point and shoot for my wife to use for family
pictures. We are recent grandparents :-).

They Olympus 3000 is very attractive, but a local camera store
salesman claims that the camera is "known to be unreliable." A
customer was supposed to have brought one back six times for repair.
The shop "refuses" to carry the camera. Is there any real problem
with this camera?

Do you believe the camera is the best for its intended use? My wife
is mechanically literate and is not likely to be put off by its complexity.
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng
From: kbb0@harvey.gte.com (Kevin Burke)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Next Nikon camera: An AF interchangeable lens rangefinder?
Summary: Focus accuracy: opto-mechanical-eyeball versus AF
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:25:58 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct2.203940.29722@cello.hpl.hp.com>, jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
> In article <2558@ceylon.gte.com> kbb0@harvey.gte.com (Kevin Burke) writes:
> >
> >I've been using rangefinder cameras as my primary camera for a while so
> >I started thinking about how a Nikon AF rangefinder might affect my
> >shooting. I started by examining all the reasons I *do* shoot a
> >rangefinder:
> >	1) Accuracy of focus of wide-angle lenses. The accuracy of the
> >	rangefinder in a late Leica M is constant, independant of focal
> >	length and max aperture. My limited understanding of AF is that it
> >	*is* dependant on focal length and max aperture.
> 
> Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by constant accuracy, but
> this doesn't sound right to me.  An AF system gives constant accuracy
> at the film plane.  

Hmm... I guess I'm not too sure either. :) A more accurate statement is
that the focus accuracy of an opto-mechanical-eyeball type rangefinder
is independent of the lens mounted to the camera. In that sense, the
absolute focus accuracy is fixed. I suppose this may or may not be a good
thing depending on the application and lens in use. Off the top of my
head (I got in trouble the last time I did this but what the heck...),
the focus accuracy of the opto-mech-eye at the film plane is probably
not constant. Favoring wide angles perhaps?

Does an AF system generally use the equivalent of the
split-image-rangefinding system (like I've seen on SLR focus screens)
and some sort of device with discrete sensing areas for determining when
the images are lined up?

> What concerns me is that with an electronic rangefinder I'd never be
> really sure it focused on what I wanted it to if the scene was
> complicated.  With either a true rangefinder or an SLR I can see for
> myself.  

I suppose the view finder would be marked with a small selective area
and the body would have an AF lock. Parallax might be an issue at closer
distances though, just like the opto/mech/eye system.
 
> Good point about a visible indicator of amount and direction of
> misfocus.  Actually, there is no reason an electronic rangefinder
> couldn't display this info.  

My wife's 8008 does have little arrows indicating the direction to turn
the lens when out of focus. Intuitively I find them to be difficult to
use. The little dot indicating actual focus pops off and on very
quickly. I might be happier with an analog type of display similar to
some of the exposure meter displays in modern SLRs. This would go a long
way toward the point above. Certainly the electronic rangefinder could
display lots of new info yet un-thought of but presenting the data in a
quickly useful way would be a challenge.  For me, there's nothin' like
seein' the real thing!

Maybe a Nikon version of the Canon RT would be attractive to people that
needed something like this.

>   -- David Jacobson

Regards, Kevin
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: news@walter.bellcore.com
Subject: Re: Olympus SuperZoom 3000 reliability and suitability
Reply-To: jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 16:23:56 GMT

In article <BvnI45.6FD@cs.dal.ca> armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong) writes:
>I am in the market for a point and shoot for my wife to use for family
>pictures. We are recent grandparents :-).
>
>They Olympus 3000 is very attractive, but a local camera store
>salesman claims that the camera is "known to be unreliable." A
>customer was supposed to have brought one back six times for repair.
>The shop "refuses" to carry the camera. Is there any real problem
>with this camera?

Three months ago, I bought one for my mother-in-law as a gift. I
am disappointed. 

First, the concerned reliability. It broke once, and was repaired 
by the manufacturer under the warranty. The problem was with the protective
shutter in front of the lens. The leaves fell apart.

Secondly, overall engineering. The lens has very small maximum apertures
(6.7 - 8.5ish). Combined with a very weak flash, you almost certain have
to use ISO 400+ films for most situations. 


Thirdly, picture quality. Obviously inferier to an SLR even on 3x5s. 
When the flash was used, the pictures looked awful. Very shadowy and
uneven.
>
>Do you believe the camera is the best for its intended use? My wife
>is mechanically literate and is not likely to be put off by its complexity.
>-- 

The camera is awkward to use.  For example, it doesn't remember the last
program settings. When you turn on the camera, you always get the defaults.
It is a royal pain to go through the menu selection process whenever you
want to take a quick shot.

I say no to this camera. 
C. Jason Chen 
jchen@wind.bellcore.com
From: tklai@acsu.buffalo.edu (Tobysze K. Lai)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Experience with Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:17:35 GMT
Organization: UB

Hi everyone,

Anybody in the net owns or has experience with the Canon 100-300mm USM lens?
I want to buy a telephoto zoom lens that can reach the photo length of 300mm.
Not long ago I posted an article requesting advice on telephoto zoom lenses,
and some net folks gave me some useful advices on zoom lenses of various
brand.

Right now, I think I should go for the lens that's made by the camera's
manufacturer.  Comparing the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 and the EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6
USM, I think the 100-300mm USM would be a better lens.  Please correct me if
I'm wrong.

So, if anyone who owns or has experience with this USM lens, any advice or
comment is greatly appreciated.  There is one question in my mind, though,
is the lens quality of the 100-300 USM really better than the 75-300?  And
how would it compare to the Sigma 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 APO? (The difference in
price is only $40)  

Again, thanks very much in advance!


Toby Lai
tklai@acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: fjcppr@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: George Eastman's musical descendant
Reply-To: fjcppr@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:36:04 GMT

George Eastman has no direct descendents. He never married and had
no children. 
Xref: sparky rec.photo:17211 ne.forsale:4359 misc.forsale:27645
From: ryuen@BBN.COM (Ray Yuen)
Newsgroups: bbn.bboard,rec.photo,ne.forsale,misc.forsale
Subject: Photo books forsale
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:18:16 GMT
Reply-To: ryuen@BBN.COM (Ray Yuen)
Distribution: na
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com



 I have the following photography books forsale.  They are all published
 by Hove Photo Books and are all in new condition.


 Leica M - The Advanced School of Photography 
 by Gunter Osterloh, 1987
 new for $59.00, sell for $45.00


 Leica Reflex Practice - R5 to R3
 by Andrew Mattheson, 1987
 new for $29.00, sell for $20.00


Please respond to Ray Yuen at  (ryuen@bbn.com)  or
       (617) 873-8627  (days)
       (617) 783-1714  (evenings)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: cs911073@ariel.yorku.ca (YUEN TUNG LU)
Subject: WANT: Information About LIGHT METER!!!
Originator: cs911073@t12.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:33:49 GMT


	I am going to buy a light meter, but I don't which is the best.
And which is suitable for me.  Would someone post or mail the info. about 
the light meter(also the price) for me? thank you!!!

						____
						 / o n y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	Tony			EMAIL: cs911073@juno.ariel.yorku.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Kodak vericolor III ASA 160 ???
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:40:39 GMT
Reply-To: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

In rec.photo, fm@neptune.iex.com (Mohammad Farooq) writes:
>I have heard that this film produces better result if shot at ASA 100. How far
>this is true? I would like to hear your experience with this film. Thanks in
>advance.

It is true.  I use this film quite often for pro work.  The lab analyzez
every negative in terms of exposure, density, etc.  They recommend ASA
100, and my results bear it out.  When exposed at ASA 100 vs ASA 160,
the colors are more vibrant and the blacks are deeper and richer.  If
you use the ASA 400 Vericolor (VPH), then it is a TRUE 400.

0  /|/| /||)|/  /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~   |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
  / | |/ ||\|\  \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_|  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Former Nikon Owner Followup
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:42:50 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


Paul Repacholi writes:

> Just a vapid thought, no one seems to have told Canon's maketriods that 'elan'
> is a synonym for 'flair'. :-)


Oxford American Dictionary:

flair, n. a natural ability to do something well or to select and recognize
what is good or useful, etc.




I'd better stop this before people think I have nothing better to do.



eugene kowaluk
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa)
Subject: Re: canon eos questions
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:00:59 GMT

Adapters: there seems to be a persistent beleif that adapters between
(pick any two) camera mounts are possible and/or stock items. An
atapter can only be built if the flange to film distance on the lens
to be adapted is longer than the same distance on the target camera.
If this isn't true, you have to introduce a negative lens to make up
the extra distance - this is what would otherwise be called a
teleconverter - it will increase the focal length of any lens you hang
on it.  If it doesn't have the lens in it, it will act as a permanent
extension tube, and deny you acces to infinity focus.

given those simple bows to mother nature, adapters can be made between
a number of medium format lenses and 35mm, and a few specific
combinations in 35mm. the only ones that I know that don't require an
extra lens are pentax screw to several brands, Olympus OM to olympus
Pen-F (half frame), and nikon -> alpa.  Note It might be possible to
make the adapter that people don't really want - namely canon EF to FD
(electronics would be problematic). The EF flange distance is just a
larger number, and unless you can come up with a way of building
adapters with negative thickness.....

What about Tamron you ask - those things that they sell are less
adapters and more "mounts" - like most independents, they design the
lens body, (which is common to all the models that they make) and
craft mounts for each brand that "convert" - tamron lets the dealer do
the final assembly on the lens, rather than shipping it from the
factory assembled. 

You have noticed that there is no canon brand adapter - I do not
beleive that they could make one to their standards - most of the
third party ones use single element lenses, which besides adding
length, completely destroy any resolution that the original has to
offer... 

It looks like you want to find someone convinced that they are staying
with the FD manual stuff, such people have significant lens
investments already and may not want yours...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news.....

<dp>