HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hamish@netcom.com (Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic)
Subject: Spotone experience out there?
Organization: Pandemonia PLC
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:34:19 GMT

I've just spent an agonising few days trying to spot a variety of
Ilford, Agfa, and Oriental Seagull B&W prints with the Spotone dyes
(the 0, 1, 2 and 3 bottles). I seem constitutionally unable to get the
exact color balance for these papers right; the Spotone sheet doesn't
seem to get it right either, or doesn't have the papers I'm using.

Does anyone out there have a good set of mixing ratios for the
following papers:

	Ilford Multigrade III Fibre, Glossy
	Ilford Galerie, Glossy
	Oriental Graded, Glossy (i.e. the "Oriental G3", etc. stuff)
	Agfa Insignia, glossy.

Or am I just doing it all wrong? Any other tips?

Thanks,
	Hamish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Reid   +1 510 596-3917   hamish@netcom.com   hamish@sybase.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: Hasselblad "C" vs "CF" lenses
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:47:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1ign64INN12m@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, monson@ece.orst.edu (Ty Monson) writes:

> As you must have guessed from the subject heading, I'm trying to figure
> what the C and CF designations mean. I've been looking in Shutter Bug,
> and occasionally eyeballing stuff in stores. The C lenses seem to be
> much less expensive (used prices, of course)
> What does a person sacrifice to get the lower prices of the C lenses?
> Or have I misinterpreted the ads?

The C lenses has a central shutter and can only be used with 500-type
cameras. The CF lenses also has a central shutter and can be used with
both 500 series cameras and 2000 series ones (and the 205 TCC). CF lenses
are generally newer and has the T* coating. There are also F lenses that
lacks a central shutter and can only be used with cameras that uses a
focal-plane shutter, like the 2000 series cameras and the 205 TCC. The
205 TCC camera, finally, also has its own series of F lenses that has some
extra interfaces in the lens mount.

-- 
--------------------- This mass of gibberish came from ---------------------
         ____
        |    |               Robert Claeson
        |    |               Data General AB
 _______|____|_              Box 28
|    |    _    |_____        S-164 93 KISTA
|_/\ |   / \   |     |       Sweden
| \/ |   \_/   |   . |
|    |    |    |_____|       robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
|____|_________|-
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Question from a Non-Shutterbug
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:07:03 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <C0C3pv.42F.2@cs.cmu.edu>, moody@e4.ius.cs.cmu.edu (James Moody)
wrote:
> I have camera body for which I would like to buy a lens (it originally 
> came with a fixed-focus lens set at about a foot).  The camera is about
> 10 years old, and is a Konika FT-1 with motor.  Could someone recommend
> a reasonable general-purpose lens for this camera?  Assume it will be
> used by a tourist for taking pictures of people standing in front of 
> things.

James-

I understand that Konica may no longer be in the SLR business.  If so, you
will need to look at used lenses, as well as dealers who have old stock. 
You are more likely to find something like a Vivitar lens for the Konica. 
You may even find an older K-Mart store that has some old stock of cheaper
lenses stashed away.

I believe that the FT-1 body is older than you think.  The T4 and TC were
current about 15 years ago, when I got my first new SLR.  I don't know if
they use the same lens mount as the FT-1.

There may be a diversity of opinion regarding the ideal general purpose
lens.  I have zooms, but find they are used more at the wide end than at
the telephoto end.  Therefore, If I had to have just one single focal
length lens, I would go for a 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.0.  On the other hand, why
not look for a mid-range zoom lens, in the range of 35-70mm or 28-85mm?  In
your situation, you may have to take what you can find!

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
From: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: depth of field question
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:53:06 GMT
Reply-To: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Jake Livni writes:

>To follow-up on Bob's fine response, late last night when the disco
>next door kept me awake (this is NYC), I looked this up in Galen
>Rowell's "Mountain Light" - I had just read him commenting on this
>somewhere.  Rowell states (and he's not all that precise about some
>technical statements) that the depth-of-field markings are appropriate
>for 8 x 10's, but that he normally uses the markings for the next
>smaller aperture.  He found that setting the HyperFocal Distance
>(setting Infinity at the DOF marker) didn't produce satisfactory
>results for him.  As you become more critical of your own work, you
>may find the DOF offerings that are proposed on your lens barrel to be
>inadequate. 

My EOS bodies have the super-convenient "DOF mode" but I've found that, in
a similar manner, my standards are higher than the person who programmed
the cpu.  So I usually note the stop that the body wants to use and then either
set exposure manually, stopping down one or two stops from the body's 
recommendation or use the "program shift" feature to stop down some more.  It'd
probably be easier to use the DOF scale on the lens, if they still bothered to 
put them on the lenses. (Grumble, gripe. ;-)

Barry
--


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | "It's much easier to go to exotic places and | 
| bjs@uts.ccc.amdahl.com      |  capture spectacular scenes than to take a   |
|                             |  spectacular picture of a really boring      |
|                             |  green pepper". - Anthony Tse                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. (I.e.  My statments are mine, not Amdahl's.)           |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale,rec.antiques
From: ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (Eric Chen)
Subject: Re: 3 Slide Projectors Give Away or Sale (>$20)
Organization: Clemson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:47:25 GMT

ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (Eric Chen) writes:

>I have three antique slide projectors which are older than 20 years.
>I would like to give them away or sell them to the highest bidder.

>1. Airequipt 129 w/4" luminal lens, w/4 carousels (each carousel hold
>	100 slides), manual control, excellent working condition.
>		Sell $40 OBO + Shipping.

>2. Argus 200 w/4" f:3.5 Argus lenses, one roller tray (hold two slides
>	only, the simplest tray), manual control, excellent working
>	condition.        Sell $20 OBO + Shipping.

>3. Bell & Howell Robomatic 750 w/lens, remote controler, spare bulb.
>	Since I can not find the tray for this one and internal
>	magnify lenses have been removed.  I will consider this one
>	for parts only.
>			SELL FOR $0.00 OBO + Shipping.

>If you are going to bid higher than the price I am asking.  You are
>encourged to do so and you will get the higher possibility to get the 
>projector.

>#1 and #2 projectors are ready to play, every parts in excellent
>condition.  No adjustments are necessary for them.  All the lenses
>listed above do not have fungi grown inside, optically perfect.
>#1 and #2 use 500W light bulb, #3 use 750W light bulb. 
>(not necessary to use the above light bulbs; you may replace your
>own low waltage bulb).

>Please reply to this account.

>Eric
--------------------------------------------

#1 and #3 sold.

Thanks for all the replies.

Eric:x

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: Mac, of course (Was Re: IBM vs. Mac for stock business)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:49:36 GMT

From article <76444@apple.apple.COM>, by russell@Apple.COM (Russell Williams):
> In article <1993Jan08.181221.191081@zeus.calpoly.edu> glporter@zeus.calpoly.edu (Glen Porter) writes:
>>The Mac needs a huge
>>amount of storage just to run, then add the amound of data space needed for
>>pictures, and you are looking at an Optical disk, or a gigabyte hard drive
> 
> This is misleading at best. The Mac and Windows machines need comparable
> amounts of RAM to do comparable tasks. Windows 3 takes somewhat more disk
> space than the Mac system software, but these numbers are irrelevant because 
> the minimum memory needed to run either system is a small fraction of the RAM
> and disk space that has been suggested for image manipulation. The
> reason for the large amounts of RAM and disk suggested for image manipulation
> is the size of image data, and image data is the same size on both
> platforms. 

Yes, for PhotoCD, we have 4meg of PC yet we cannot even retrieve the
highest resolution photo (3000 x 2000).  For some reason it demand
to put everything into RAM.  1500 x 1000 was ok.  Remember, these are
24-bit data. 
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale
From: PXY@ECLX.PSU.EDU (Pen-Li Yen)
Subject: For Sale:Nikon Bodies, Lenses-Cheap
Organization: Penn State Engineering Computer Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 05:43:51 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

Nikon bodies, lenses and flash for sale:


1. Nikon FG chrome body (excellent condition):   $85
2. Nikkormat FS chrome body (excellent condition): $90
3. Nikon N-2000 body (mint conditon): $185

4. Nikkor 135mm f:3.5 #254985 AI (mint condition): $100
5. Nikkor 105mm f:2.5 #901956 AIS (excellent condition): $165
6. Micro-Nikkor 55mm #491438 AIS f:2.8 (near mint condition): $190
7. Micro-Nikkor 55mm #771646 non-AI w/PK-3 27.5mm (mint condition): -----
	--------------- for collector only, make an offer
8. Nikon EM w/50mm f:2 E (excellent condition): $105

9. Nikon SB-15 flash (mint condition): --------------------------------
	--------------- for collector only, make an offer

Thank you.

Yuesea
803-654-8817
From: neilw@informix.com (Neil Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 430EZ question
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:21:14 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan11.140658.3714@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@ctt.bellcore.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.174554.15239@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>|> 
>|> To the best of my knowledge, EOS bodies do not support after exposure flash
>|> underexposure warnings.
>|> 
>SUNPAK 433AF has a green light that comes on after the exposure if the subject
>was within range. 
>
>You may take the absence of the green light as a passive warning.

I guess I don't understand the problem.  The 430EZ tells you
*before* the picture is taken whether or not the scene will
be correctly exposed.  If you can know beforehand, why would
you prefer to know after the fact?

I find the ATTL particularly useful when trying bounce flash
with high ceilings - if you get an incorrect exposure warning,
just flip the flash head down and shoot direct.

--Neil

-- 
Neil Williams: neilw@informix.com

Seen on my last trip on United: "If you are seated in an exit row 
and can not (sic) read this card... please notify a crew member."
From: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Shirt Pocket Cameras
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:14:10 GMT
Reply-To: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Peter Davidoff writes:

>Recently I read an article about a 19th century vogue:  cameras in a hat.
>Yep.  They mounted the entire box and plate in the hat, dropped from the
>front brim a range finder, and over the ear, on a cord, was the shutter
>trip.
>
>Seems like a great alternative to the pocket camera, eh?  :)

Oh no!  First we had to worry about the dreaded "hat hair".  Then there was
"camera hair" from ducking under the focusing cloth.  Now we have to 
worry about "hat-camera hair".  :-)  What's next?

Barry

--


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | "It's much easier to go to exotic places and | 
| bjs@uts.ccc.amdahl.com      |  capture spectacular scenes than to take a   |
|                             |  spectacular picture of a really boring      |
|                             |  green pepper". - Anthony Tse                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. (I.e.  My statments are mine, not Amdahl's.)           |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: glenm@bnr.ca (Glen Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Sample model release:
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:33:01 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <C0JovH.E9F@news.ucs.mun.ca>, hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm (Evil Spock)) writes:

... long armour-clad release deleted

|> MY problem with it is that it looks a little heavy/scary for some 
|> situations.

Yes, it did that. Here is an alternative which I and a number of
others at my photo club use. We also state something about non-
commercial use only, and some indication as to what sort of photos
they are (eg: fashion, figure, etc).

In exchange for valuable considerations, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, I, <insert model name here>, do hereby irrevokably
assign all rights to any prints produced from films exposed of me
on <insert shoot date>, and all derivative works.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Martin  Bell-Northern Research  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  glenm@bnr.ca
"You don't need to be afraid of us, but it just might be your daughter on
our bus." -- 'New Kid on the Block' by BareNaked Ladies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm (Evil Spock))
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Top Tip
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:08:11 GMT
Organization: Ocean Sciences Centre


	Don't waste money on expensive zoom lenses.  Simply
	stand closer to the objects you want to photograpgh.

	: )

-- 
  Craig Hamm, Memorial University,|   
  Newfoundland, Ocean Acoustics   |
  Canada                          |
  ________________________________|
From: malu@imhps.im.se (Mats Luthman SYSTECON)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: f length equivalent to human eye???
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:02:11 GMT
	<1993Jan12.024532.8731@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
Organization: Industri-Matematik Data AB, Sweden

In article <1993Jan12.024532.8731@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow) writes:
   Regarding the focal length of the human eye, I remember reading in
   several different photo mags in the past that the focal length of
   the adult human eye is approximately 65mm. If you set your zoom
   to approximately this length you'll see that the viewfinder image
   is approximately the same as the naked eye image.

I think the size and viewing distance to the final picture is what
matters. It is a projection of a three dimensional reality, and there
is only at one certain distance that the picture looks like a
projection of a scene of the right size.

What you see in the viewfinder is irrelevant, it could be made to look
just any size depending on the viewfinder lens.


--
Mats Luthman
Systecon AB (A subsidiary of Industri-Matematik AB)
Stockholm, Sweden
From: Rinne@ikw.uni-hannover.dbp.de (Frank Rinne)
Subject: Lenses for 4x5 cameras
Keywords: Lenses
Organization: IKW
Distribution: all
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:53:50 GMT

I have a question,
in Germany a company sells 4x5 cameras (ISTON WF45) for about
400$. This camera can be used with lenses from 90mm to 250 mm.
A similar system (TOYA 45 A) takes lenses from 65 mm.
What are the differences between these systems?


Frank
From: uli@i13d5.ira.uka.de (Uli Bodenhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: light/photography conditions in Florida
Date: 11 Jan 1993 10:44:54 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i13d5.ira.uka.de


Hi,
I'm visiting Florida (Miami, Key West, Everglades) in
a couple of days. I'm still undecided what equipment/film
I should take with me for this trip. 

If there are many tourists there I would prefer candid pictures 
of people with 35mm equipment.

If there are few tourists I will take landscapes with medium format.
In this case, what kind of (or how much) light can I expect? Can I use
Agfa 25 without a tripod? If not (= overcast conditions), I'd probably
bring TMax 100 with me.

Any comments? 

	Uli
From: bridges@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: KODAK 3-A??
Date: 11 Jan 93 11:15:06 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In going through some inherited items, I found an old Kodak
camera.  It's a bellows type measuring about 4.5 x 9 inches.
On the inside of the back cover is the following notation:
     No. 3-A FOLDING POCKET KODAK
	   MODEL C.
           U.S. PATENTS
	SEP. 26, 1894     oCT. 8 1901
	JUN 21 1898       JAN 21 1902
	SEP 20 1898	  APR 29 1902
	SEP 9 1902	  OCT 19 1909

       OTHER PATENTS PENDING
   	
Then the manufacturing statement.

Do this camera have any value to a collector?  I think it takes
120 film.
Doug Bridges
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: srfergu@rufus.erenj.com (Scott Ferguson)
Subject: Re: What is IMHO?
Organization: Exxon Research & Engineering Co.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:00:44 GMT

In article <RUSTY.93Jan1140215@groan.Berkeley.EDU>, rusty@groan.Berkeley.EDU (Rusty Wright) writes:
|> Has there ever been a contest to see who can come up with the silliest
|> translation for IMHO?  "It's mega hyper, oh-baby", "it might hurt
|> otherwise", etc.

How  about: I Mangled His Orbs

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Ferguson                        Exxon Research & Engineering Co.
Project Engineer                      New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Always bark at a dog."
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@pacific.base.bellcore.com ()
Subject: test
Reply-To: jchen@pacific.base.bellcore.com ()
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway, NJ
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 20:25:27 GMT

test

C. Jason Chen                 
**************E-Mail: jchen@ctt.bellcore.com
**************V-Mail: (908)699-6993
**************P-Mail: 444 Hoes Lane, 1E229, Piscataway, NJ
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Michael Robinson)
Subject: f length equivalent to human eye???
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Novell Users).
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:03:24 GMT

Hi all,

Happy new year.

I have been thinking about the issue of what focal length is equivalent to 
that of the human eye.  Most books say 50mm is the closes ito either angle 
of view or perspective.  I accepted this as given until I came across an 
article in a local magazine saying 105mm is the closest to the human eye.  
This I did not believe but went out with my 35-80 zoom lens and, looking at 
the moon, adjusted the zoom so that the moon through the lens was the same 
size as the moon as seen by my left eye.  This gave a focal length of about 
70mm.  Since eyepiece has a magnification of 0.8x I adjusted for this giving 
56mm.  Is this accurate?  Is there a better way to do things?

Thank you
Cheers,
Michael
(robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za)
ps please respond by e-mail since my news feed is very irregular.
From: wave@waits.media.mit.edu (Michael B. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Shirt Pocket Cameras
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:03:16 GMT

Steve Bunis writes
> In article 2300093@hpgrla.gr.hp.com, peterd@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Peter Davidoff)  
writes:
> > Steve:
> > 
> > Recently I read an article about a 19th century vogue:  cameras in a hat.
> > Yep.  They mounted the entire box and plate in the hat, dropped from the
> > front brim a range finder, and over the ear, on a cord, was the shutter
> > trip.
> > 
> > Seems like a great alternative to the pocket camera, eh?  :)
> > 
> > 
> > Peter

I actually attached my Maxxum 9000 to my cap at my Master's graduation.  With  
the self-timer, I could reach up and start it going.  Got some great pictures,  
especially when the provost handed me my degree...

--

-->  Michael B. Johnson
-->  MIT Media Lab      --  Computer Graphics & Animation Group
-->  (617) 253-0663     --  wave@media-lab.media.mit.edu
-->  NeXT Mail accepted at  wave@nordine.media.mit.edu
From: bwm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Brian McBride)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:18:56 GMT
Subject: Re: WANTED: carrying strap for bogen tripod
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, CCSY Messaging Centre, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.photo

I used an old camera strap for my bogen.  The strap came with small metal rings
on each end.  The legs on my tripod are secured by tightening wing nuts.  Pick 
a leg and undo the bolt of the top wing nut.  Thread the bolt through one of
the rings and do up the bolt again.  The is the bottom end secured.  I cant
remember how I attached the other ring - but I think there was a convenient 
bolt just below the head of the tripod too.  Works great.

bwm
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Fashion Photography -- Going Pro
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:56:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio) writes:
: In article <353@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
: >tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:
: >: 
: >: >	Fujichrome 100D and some Ektachrome 64x and maybe some plain
: >: >	Ektachrome 64 and Kodachrome 64.  Then tell me what you think!
: >: 
: >:    Kodachrome, yuk.
: >
: >I concur, but a number of fashion photographers in the Miami Beach area
: >prefer Kodachrome.  Maybe it's just to please the magazine editors.
: 
: PKR's so-so, but ever tried PKM (Kodachrome 25 Professional)?

Yes.  In a nutshell, here are a few reasons why I prefer E-6 films:

o  Too slow
o  Artificial-looking colors (to my eyes, anyway).
o  Requires K-14 processing
	- expensive
	- environmentally unfriendly
	- cannot get it processed in less than a day, unless I want to
	  drive like a madman to Miami Beach right after the shoot.

: And what other slide film has such good shadow detail, huh?

Actually, T-max 100.  You didn't say *color*! ;-)

: E-6 pro-level (dip-dunk) processing is much cheaper, though...
: But also less predictable and consistent.

That depends on the lab you use.  A well-managed E-6 processor can
turn out consistent results, just like a well-managed K-14 processor.
Prices vary, but I am getting E-6 locally for about $6 per roll, while
I have to send off Kodachrome for $8 per roll, not including postage.

: I may be shooting a
: clothing catalog within the month, and my film will be PKM.

How much do you charge for that?
-- 
Jay Ts
uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
phone: (813) 979-9169
Newsgroups: rec.photo