HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: View finder cleaning
From: mandayrv@ucunix.san.uc.edu (The Karate Kid)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 18:50:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <1992Aug16.152539.5130@bmw.mayo.edu> you write:
>Hi!
>
>	I was wondering if someone on the net could help me out here.  I attempted
>to clean the ground (translucent) grid in my EOS 630 (the one which has the focussing
>area marked out and is basically a glass rectange with concentric grooves on it) and
>I have gone and left streaks on it.  I want to repent for this sin of my mine.  
>
>	Are there any crude, but efficient methods of removing dust specks from within
>the grooves?  I tried to go over them lightly with a Q-tip, and with the Kodak cleaning
>paper, but I only manage to move the dust particles from one point to the place where 
>I lift the Q-tip or paper off the glass.  
>
>	Are there any reliable shops in the MPLS/St. Paul area which would undertake
>a removal+cleaning of the ground glass viewfinder?  Any idea about the approx. cost?
>

Don't know about that.


>	I am not sure if this topic has already been discussed before, but I would
>really appreciate it if I could be directed to the right sources.
>


Your friendly photo dealer may be able to supply you ( for $$$ ) an
ANTI STATIC BRUSH. This thing is extremely effective. All you do is just
brush the dust off. The main reason why dust remains on the ground is
because of static and the brush generates a negative charge vis a vis the
dust. This helps to neutralize the charge and thus dislodge the dust
particles very easily.



>	Thanks in advance.
-- 
  mandayrv@ucunix.san.uc.edu
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: media permanence (was Re: photo-developing, specifically nudes)
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:46:44 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
: In article <239@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
: >
: >So, the media on which digital information is encoded *does* degrade.
: >A while back I was reading in rec.audio that if you play an audio CD
: >for about 24 hours, it will lose data to the point of the loss becoming
: >clearly audible.  I think it had something to do with the centripetal
: >force of spinning on the aluminum.  I don't really remember.
: 
: That is so much crap, they don't spin fast enough for that to happen.

I am just passing on what I read on the net.  I didn't guarantee anything
about quality!  Actually though, it was verified by more than one poster.

: I can play an original never been play CD and a one I have been playing
: continuously for days (I often just let my 5 disk changer play for days
: at a time as background music)

You have to play the same one continuously without ever stopping.  Anyway,
that's what they said...  but then maybe the manufacturers have fixed the
problem by now.  I wouldn't have any idea, because I don't even own a
CD player.

BTW, thanks for calling what I wrote "crap".  That feels really good.

Jay Ts
Xref: sparky rec.photo:14239 misc.forsale:23660 dc.forsale:1960
From: winston@fjc.GOV (Winston M. Llamas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,misc.forsale,dc.forsale
Subject: Maxxum camera/lens for sale
Keywords: Maxxum,8000i,sale
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:46:15 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: usa
Organization: Federal Judicial Center, Washington, D.C.

For Sale:

  Maxxum 8000i body in mint- condition
   w/ custom card and grid screen
  Maxxum 100-300 f4-5.6 i series zoom in mint- condition
   w/ filter

  All for $500 (or best offer)

  Also for sale: exposure bracketing card, flash bracketing card
	$10 each

Leave email if interested (or call 703) 516-0751

Winston
winston@fjc.GOV
llamas@itd.rnl.navy.mil <- preferred mail address

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: coreym@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Corey Murata)
Subject: Re: Printing from Slides at home
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:39:41 GMT

In article <168479E34.G0900@vmcms.csuohio.edu> G0900@vmcms.csuohio.edu writes:
>I have just purchased a Vivitar's Instant Slide Printer.  It allows me
>to make color prints, B&W prints from 35mm mounted slides. It produces
>3 1/4 x 4 1/4 prints from Polaroid pack film.
> 
>Has anyone else used this type of printer? I have tried it and slides
>that are dark (night shots) so far are not coming out as nice as I
>had thought they would.  Hopefuly with practice they will be better.
>Does anyone have any ideas that would help me?

Is this anything like the Daylab? The Daylab is considerably more expensive
($279.95 from B&H) but apparently has the ability to print 8x10s from
either a color slide or negative. I've wondered how this works, it doesn't
seem like any chemicals are involved.

Does anyone have one of these or have any information on one?

aloha,
Cm

--
+--------------------------------------------+
|Corey Murata (coreym@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu)|
|Hamilton Library, Gen & Hum, Soc Sci Ref    |
|956-2527                                    |
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: apollo@uni-paderborn.de (Knut Barten)
Subject: Faster slide-film wanted
Organization: Uni-GH Paderborn, Germany
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:31:51 GMT

Hi folks,

I'm looking for a faster, slide-film which is not more expensive than
my everyday-film Kodak Ektachrome 100. I like the Ektachrome but
the 200 asa and 400 asa is to expensive for everyday-use.
The 400 Ektachrome comes a bit to green, I think.

So what's your experience with Fuji, Agfa, Scotch, etc. >= 200 asa ???

#### - o #####################################################   # // #
## - _/\  Knut Barten - Arndtstr. 9 - 4790 Paderborn (Germany) \\ // ##
# - ()>() ##################################################### \X/ ###
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: OPINIONS WANTED: Nikkor 28-85mm f3.5-4.5
From: swayzed@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:14:32 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

I have the opportunity to purchase a used Nikkor 28-85 f3.5-4.5 zoom lens for
$375. (Canadian Dollars). It is manual focus and the glass is in excellent
condition as is the exterior. The lens mount shows some wear but seems to mount
firmly to my camera. I would appreciate any opinions anyone has on this lens.
Is it sharp, am I getting it at a good price, etc? I should note that I checked
out Shutterbug and have found that most places are selling this lens used for
$350-$450 in US$. I am also trading in a Soligor 28-70mm f3.9-4.9 which will
knock $100 off the price of the Nikkor. 

Thanks for your help.

David


-- 
 
David Swayze        | SWAYZED@BrandonU.CA    | Reading furnishes the mind only
Brandon University  | Canada (pokey) Post:   | with materials of knowledge; it
Brandon, Manitoba   | 56 Wilnor Bay          | is thinking which makes what we
Canada              | Brandon, MB, R7B 3H1   | read ours.           John Locke
From: IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: polycarbonate camera bodies
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:37:04 GMT
 <1992Aug11.214948.8774@bony1.bony.com>
 <1992Aug12.164443.29081@midway.uchicago.edu>
 <1992Aug18.111915.16586@sys.sweden.dg.com>
 <1992Aug19.160354.26209@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>
Organization: University of Maine System

In article <1992Aug19.160354.26209@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>,
feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman) says:
>
>We shouldn't forget that the Glock pistol is a composite manufacture of resins
>and metal.  They use "plastics" for the frame, slide, and magazine.  The rest
>of the pistol is metal and includes a metal to metal slide interface.  These

Just a note, the slide isn't plastic, it's metal.  The frame, trigger and
SOME of the internals are plastic.

Nicholas
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: media permanence (was Re: photo-developing, specifically nudes)
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:36:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Aug19.213620.25447
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <22234@venera.isi.edu> finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.155539.17331@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>Hold it, are you trying to tell me that a B&W PRINT can out live its digital
>>counter-part?  I don't think so.
>
>	What digital storage technique has a successful 50+ year
>history and is still being used on a significant scale?  I know of
>none.  If you do, speak up.  CD storage, to pick the currently hot
>technology, may or may not still be around in 50 years.  If you use
>history as a guide, it won't be.  It won't do anyone any good to have
>a stack of CDs with error-corrected codes if there are no longer any
>readers made.  Our warehouse is chock-full of generations of old
>digital storage technology.

Not valid, since we haven't had digital media all that long, but as you
say below, I am sort of predicting the future. If there is any digital
media that is 50 years old (were we using any during World War 2?), it
was when the technology was in its most infant stage.  Surely we have
had changes since then, but as the technology matures more and more
of the digital media will become standardized, and will have at least
a useful lifespan.

>	You may be right ... but to be right you are predicting a future
>that stands in stark contrast to the past.

As I stated above, the past is as it was, and we moved forward from the
most simplest of tools when the technology was very immature.  Take
gunpowder for instance. We have of course improved on it quite a bit, but
it still explodes with the best of them.  Whats to stop anybody from making
digital media that has its own built on play back system/interface integrated
into the very media that contains the pictures or whatever.....simple....
.....NOTHING.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Subject: Re: Me and E6
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:40:33 GMT


In article <rodney.713551781@kitscoty>, rodney@cs.UAlberta.CA (Rodney
Gitzel) writes:

|> But that's not _so_ important, anymore.  I just don't have the *time*,
|>  at least right now, to deal with this.  [...]

There's nothing like reality to rattle one's vision of happiness.  :)

If it seems overwhelming, I think your idea of starting with a Hobby
Pac is a good one.  You'll get a much easier introduction to the whole
process.  The only *real* change with the gallon kit is that you'll
have a little more work to do mixing chemicals, and there are more
steps (because some of them were combined in the Hobby Pac).  You just
need to get past the initial shock, I think.  The fear of the unknown.

As to used chemicals -- try to arrange not to have any.  In other
words, if the capacity of your tank is one liter of fluid, and each
liter of chemistry will process six rolls, try to come up with five or
six rolls of film to process, and then just throw the used stuff out.

Failing that, I keep the used developer liter separate, and if I can't
come up with enough film to process before it goes sour, I toss it
anyway.  It is a *serious* mistake to try and save money by using old
chemicals.  I think it's also a mistake to dilute new, fresh chemicals
with used stuff, except in the case of C-41 bleach.  When I want clean
chemistry, I want clean chemistry.

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Cambridge.
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:02:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug17.183208.9259@cabezon.uucp>, joee@cabezon.uucp (Joe Eckardt) writes:
> ACK!! NEVER AGAIN will I deal with them!  Two stories I'd better relats
> concerning their "honesty"...
> 
> A while back I ordered a specialty camera (3D) from them.  I new the
> manufacturer had gone out of business and that the last cameras they
> manufactured were 8 years before -- meaning I was buy NOS (new old

I assume you mean the "NIMSLO". I also got one of these from Cambridge, but
in person, not via mail, which is relevant because........

> that was packaged in the camera box.  The batteris were also the original
> ones from the camera box -- they were bubble packed with the manufacturer's
> label.  Those batteries were AT LEAST 8 years old and probably more like
> 10!  They charged me $20 extra NOT to strip out the original accessories!

....the batteries didn't work! Since I could try it out on the spot they
were forced to give me good batteries - though they were not too happy about
it.

I also purchased a 500mm f8 "Cambron Lens" (which isn't bad for the $100 price
tag) and they suggested I buy a "custom" lens hood. When they showed it to
me it was a standard WIDE ANGLE screw on rubber lens hood - pretty much useless
on a 500mm lens. If you HAVE to deal with these guys, it pays to do so in 
person. If you can't, then at least be aware of their scams. Preferably buy
from someone else!

[Note they are selling their slide duplicator as an "autofocus" model. Well,
it is sort of autofocus - the focus is fixed on the slide position, so I guess
it is automatically in focus. Truth in advertising?]

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
From: yzhang@acsu.buffalo.edu (Yinong Zhang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Nikkor AF 35-70/3.3 zoom For Sale
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:00:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

Nikon AF 35-70/3.3 Zoom lens For Sale

    New, Never be used. box, card.
 
   $ 100 include shipping.


Chang
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm)
Subject: Re: The quality of Nikon "E" lenses?
Organization: Ocean Sciences Centre
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:25:29 GMT


	I have made several 11X14's from negs made through
	an E-series lens.  Pro's have seen the prints, and wondered
	what lens i used.  They were really surprised at the contrast,
	colur, and sharpness. 

-- 
  
    Craig Hamm, 		From 'Viz', Victor Pratt, the stupid twat
    Memorial University	        Biker: "My bike's got a flat, Vic"
    DoD #1500,           	Vic:   "Really? Whereabouts is it living?"
    '81 Maxim 650 
    ----
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Qualex complaints (was Fuji E-6 labs)
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:30:58 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Aug17.194314.15859@u.washington.edu>, watters@mendel.genetics.washington.edu (Mike Watters) writes:
> Problems with mailers:
> 	I can't speak for Fuji, but I sent in a Kodak slide mailer 3 weeks
> ago and have yet to get my film back.
> 
> mike
> 
For Qualex's sake, i hope that they have a rep somewhere paying attention to
this kind of complaint.  Qualex's ``improvement'' by going to bulk mailings
ends up making some parts of the country VERY slow.  i waited 72 days for a
roll of Kodachrome this spring, and then read their insert explaining the
virtues of the new system included with my slides.  Since i was used to 14
day turnaround with the old system, i stopped buying Kodalux mailers.  Now 
all my slides go to A&I in Hollywood: much faster, much better quality control
(they call me at home to resolve processing questions!), and the added
expense is minimal.
 
Qualex is heading the wrong direction in quality and service areas, and i don't
think they realize it.

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photography in low light?
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:07:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Aug19.150722.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Aug19.215131.25859@clark.edu>, gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>choice would be a high speed B&W.  THis summer, either Pop. Photo or Petersens
>>Photo. had an article that mentioned T-MAX P3200 rated at EI25000 for
>>surveillance work.  Try some T-MAX at 6400 or 12500 (and a hand-held meter
>>that can handle the low light!).
> 
> I remember reading that, and I also remember thinking to myself, "How is it
> possible to rate a film so high".  I didn't think the ISO "standard" went
> that high?
> 
> Gary
> 
it's been a while since i've looked at the insert that comes with P3200, but
i believe that processing instructions from Kodak are included up to EI12500
(i could well be mistaken here).  In any case, exposure wouldn't really be
a problem to extrapolate from a more normal film speed such as 6400.  
The development times would be the hard part to work out, but i'll bet that
Kodak has all ready done that for us. (Any spies out there who regularly use
this stuff at super-high speeds?)

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu
From: leonglaw@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Lawrence Leong)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:48:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Need information about these cameras.
Organization: HP Singapore
Newsgroups: rec.photo

In rec.photo, tommy@taichung.Eng.Sun.COM writes:


|Hi,
|
|	I plan to purchase my camera very soon and I need more 
|information.  Does anybody own or use any one of the following 
|cameras ? Could you mail me your opinions about the camera and 
|the price you bought ?  Thanks in advance.
|
|	1) Canon T90

S$1000 3 years ago (then, S$1.75=US$1.00) body only.  No major gripes, has
allowed me not to junk my FD lens collection.  Controls designed to fall 
naturally for fingers, nice feel, gives 4fps on AA cells (but beware of Li 
battery, and LCD life), seems to take being slung on my back when I go
cycling.  Gripes: Setting wheel rotates "wrong" way -- also use an A-1, so I
used to get temporarily confused initially.  Lousy to use in manual mode as 
*current* aperture & speed settings not shown in viewfinder.  Dead without
batteries.  Initially rather fiddly with all the buttons and combinations of
buttons.  Nice camera, though.

|	2) Canon F1
About S$1200 3 yrs ago, body only, add S$500 for motor drive.  If you need
automatic exposure, add another couple of hundred $.  Rugged feel, but heavy.
Has manual shutter exposure, but only the faster speeds; slow speeds (and long
exposures) are still at the mercy of battery life.  Changing exposure patterns
requires fiddly changing of focussing screens.  Kinda absurd.  I would have
gone for this except for the cost -- it would have cost about 2x a T-90 for
the same level of features.  

The F-1 prices appear to be appreciating here.  How about in US?

Downside of the FD lens range is that Canon is not paying so much attention to
it.  They seem to be concentrating more on the EOS range.  Canon states that
they will not be discontinuing it, but neither will they be adding to it.  

|	3) Nikon F3HP
|	4) Contax RTS III

Haven't used these, so no comment.
|
|
|====================================================================
|I    Tommy Hsieh              I    Sun Micro. Computer System      I
|I    mail address :           I                                    I 
|I      tommy@sun.com          I                               	   I
|====================================================================

lawrence
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Multiple SB-24 setups, your experiences 
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 19:15:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.221613.2023@indetech.com> alix@indetech.com (Alexandria North) writes:
>
>I'd like to hear from people who have used multiple SB-24 speedlights
>with their Nikon cameras for "studio" lighting.
>
>I have a Nikon 8008s and a single SB-24. I want to do some portrait 
>and other work that requires multiple lights. I know I want to use 
>electronic flash, but I can't afford the White Lightning units (with 
>modeling lights) that I aspire to. I may be able to get two SB-24s, 
>though, and the cords necessary to slave them and such.

With the Olympus equipment that I use, it is possible to connect
several dedicated Olympus flashes with cords to get multiple flash 
lighting with TTL and OTF control.  I haven't done this yet nor do 
I know if your Nikon set-up facilitates this.

Another reasonably valid approach is to have the flashes triggered 
by slaves like the Wein slaves.  This will tell them when to turn 
on but not when to turn off, i.e. no centralized control.  Then
your control will have to be at the flash (e.g. using variable power
on Vivitar 285's) and calculating or using Polaroid tests or using a
flash meter to measure each of the lights separately.  Using a flash
meter is probably the way you'd use regular studio lights and so this
might be one good path for you.  In this case, you won't necessrily
need Nikon flash units (though they are probably still usable) and
you'll probably want some other power supply for the flashes, e.g.
plenty of Ni-Cads, Quantum batteries or AC Power supply.

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hsong@ardour.bellcore.com
Subject: Fuji Anaheim Processing Lab.
Reply-To: hsong@ardour.bellcore.com
Organization: Bellcore
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 19:39:32 GMT


On Aug. 4, Frank Loffel wrote:

> Some changes appear to have happened in terms of Fuji E6 processing using
> Fuji prepaid mailers:
>
> - The Fuji Processing Labs in Anaheim, CA do no longer operate. Mailers
> sent to this lab are forwarded to Fuji TruColor Photo in Phoenix, Arizona.
> - TruColor Photo in Phoenix uses carboard mounts exclusively. At this time,
> no plastic mount capability exists at this lab.
>
> - There appears to be no other Fuji lab capable of mounting with plastic.

Well, I received Velvia slides processed in Fuji Anaheim Lab.  Actaully I
used their mailer and sent it to Fuji's Harrison, New Jersey lab.  It took
more than a week  and was sent to me from Anaheim, CA.  All slides were
mounted in cardboards. Not much paper particles.  No fingerprints.
I may stick to Fuji Anaheim lab for some time.

BTW, has anybody had Fuji Anaheim lab process 120 format C-41 processing 
films?   They do not seem to carry standard envelopes
for customers to use to send negatives. 

	Hugh
From: honna@cs.concordia.ca (SEGEL honna)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Improvising with Photo Equipment -- books?
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:54:38 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

There's nothing wrong with technology that a little innovation can't
correct.

HS/Michael





-- 
***************************************************************
honna segel
department of computer science
concordia university  *****************************************
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jgong@.com (John Gong)
Subject: Re: F4s, SB-24, what gives?
Reply-To: jgong@oracle.UUCP (John Gong)
Organization: Oracle Internet Staff
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:35:04 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug18.191800.27174@cs.ucla.edu> doron@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Amir Doron) writes:
>>rest.  I've been doing the same with a 6006 and the builtin flash.  Just
>>set it to fillflash mode and matrix metering. Presto. Great indoor party
>>photos. (Still gotta watch out for redeye with the builtin flash, though.)
>>
>>
>>           John
>
>
>But doing this will cause overexposer.  The fill flash adds extra light in
>addition to what is required fo correct exposure.  In a situation where
>you have a dark subject in front of a light background this is what you
>want (to equalize the brightness of the subject and of the background).  
>But when taking indoor pictures, there usually isn't a strongly-lit
>background, so adding more light will just cause over-exposure (which will
>be corrected by the automatic printer if print film is used).
>
>Using slow-sync flash will work better.  It will allow more ambiant light
>to reach the film, but not enough to make an exposure without using flash.
>
>--amir


Ah,

You're correct.  In my haste in writing up the last response, I failed to
mention the slow-sync setting and/or turning on the background lighting,
if available.


        John