HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN)
Subject: Re: Longish macro lens for EOS. (was Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:17:56 GMT

In article <PD.92Dec30014256@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.122948.26657@eua.ericsson.se> Harald.Brandt@eua.ericsson.se (Harald Brandt) writes:
>
>   or/and 45 mm TS, 100/2.0 USM, 100/2.8 Macro, 50mm/2.5 macro, Extender X2.  
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Don't buy that one. Buy the Tamron 90mm macro instead. It is the best
>macro lens around 100mm, and since the Canon lens doesn't have a USM
>it has no advantage at all over the Tamron.
>--
>Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
>Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN

Is your recommendation for the Tamron 90mm macro a personal preference 
or is it substantiated by "lab" testing and or "field" testing by a 
non-partistan group? To say the Tamron is the *best* is really saying 
too much, IMHO. IF you mean the best in terms of cost, as in cheaper, 
then your choice is well taken. IMHO, when it comes to lenses or 
camera equipment in general, I attempt to opt for quality. Again, my 
personal preference.  I would never buy a non-Canon lens for my Canon 
camera, again my personal preference. This will certainly evoke many
users of "other" lenses for their cameras and has been discussed to
death before. Hey, you typically buy what you can afford. If the
Tamron lens meets YOUR needs, then great. BTW, why in carnation
would anyone need an AF macro lens?  Oh well.
-- 
 ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know
everything or nothing about it."   Olin Miller
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.131003.28563@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>Well, looking at my F1N brochure, I see an FD 20-35/3.5L and an FD
>28-55/3.5-4.5.  I don't see anything like an FD 24-35.  So go for it! :-)

	Well, I had a FD 24-35L in my hand twice.  Never seen a FD 20-35L.
I think there is a missprint somewhere.

-Anthony
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis)
Subject: Re: Canon EOS A2 vs Minolta Maxxum 7xi
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:26:33 GMT

In <28995@oasys.dt.navy.mil> research@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mike Leavitt) writes:
>I'm a new reader of rec.photo, inspired by a need to upgrade from my 20-year
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>old Canon FTb.  I have several questions.  If they're FAQs, please respond
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why?

>On the other hand, the A2 does not have a power zoom/
>autozoom capability.  Question for autozoomers:  is it very important to have
>that gadget?  If the camera can do everything else, can't I zoom it myself?  
>Question for everyone else with experience with either, am I omitting any
>crucial differences that will be show stoppers?  (I intend to do mostly
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>outdoors/nature work.)
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I hope you mean wildlife (animals; things that *move*).   If it's
landscapes you're talking about, keep your FTb.  Perhaps get better
lenses, a second body, and a spot meter.  Autozoom?  For landscapes?
Surely I've misunderstood you.

Autofocus is no better suited for landscape photography than manual
focus (worse actually).  If you want gizmos, get a new camera.  If you
want a status symbol, get a Leica.  If you have more money than you
need, I'm currently accepting donations. :-)

If you actually mean you want to photograph birds in flight, etc.,
then, er, well...   "never mind" and just ignore me. :-)
--
Al Goldis           alan-goldis@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt
Xref: sparky rec.photo:22874 rec.crafts.misc:960
From: veatch@cs.toronto.edu ("Tim Veatch")
Newsgroups: rec.photo,rec.crafts.misc
Subject: X-Large photo folders / organizers
Date: 3 Jan 93 03:34:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Toronto

I've been looking out for some large photo folders
for putting my photos in.  I don't want the the photo sheets that
have the pockets for the various sizes of pictures.
I want to be able to arrange the pictures and other misc stuff
however I like.  I think they call these sheets "magnetic" sheets,
for whatever reason, I don't know.  (They have a sticky surface
to attach the picture to and a clear plastic that goes on top)

I have always wondered why I could never find some very large
photo sheets like these (say 2'x2.5').  Then we could compose some
very nice montages of pics, notes, etc together along with
appropriate amounts of 'white space'/borders.

I was happy to find 1'x1' (approx) photo sheets at Walmart (of all
places) made by the same people who make the Post-It notes.
I believe their line is called 'Flash-backs'.

Has anyone seen anything larger?
Are there professional versions of these things? (I'm sure
a professional would rather comit suicide than use these things,
but you never know.)

Thanx in advance.
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Taking pictures in snow... filters?
Keywords: polarizing vs 81
Date: 21 Dec 92 07:40:08 GMT

In <BzLF8A.K10@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (TJ Doran) writes:

>All this talk about taking pictures in snow has me thinking (those who know
>me may be mildly shocked :-)

Well, I don't know you, so I'm going to expect great things!  (The pressure
piles on...)

>What is the difference, both technical and effective, between using polarizing
>and 81-series filters to warm up those blue snowy shadows? Do they have the
>same effect?

A polarizing filter blocks polarized light.  Light reflected from many
surfaces (including atmosphere) is at least partially polarized.  So,
the polarizer is used to make things reflecting sunlight have less
glare or look darker.

The 81-series filters are simply coloured filters used to make things
look "warmer"--orange like the quality of light around sunset.  Very
different!

So if you're getting a lot of glare off the snow, you might try the
polarizer.  If you want it to look like it's closer to sunset than it
really is, use the 81A.

>Also, I just found out about linear vs. circular polarizers (haven't checked
>mine yet to see which it is). Will a linear polarizer throw off my light meter?
>If so, how far and in which direction (+/-)?

If your camera has a beam splitter, your light meter will probably be
off if you use a linear polarizer.  Whether you get over- or under-
exposure depends on the angle of polarization.

>Cheers,
>TJ

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
From: mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: T mount adapters
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:26:16 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <29045@oasys.dt.navy.mil> intolabb@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steven Intolubbe) writes:
>
>    I have seen various T mount adapters for different bayonet
>mounts and I have seen a "universal" adapter that screws on to
>something.  What do "universal" T mount adapters adapt.
>

They adapt to the Universe, of course.  That way, your lens becomes a lens
into the Universe!

No?  OK, I know it's pretty bad, but what do you expect?  I'm here at work
when it seems the rest of the western world has a free 2-week vacation.  Hmph.

>				       Thanks,
>				       Steve

Anytime!
Mike

-- 
Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             mikec@spider.co.uk
Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mjg@nwu.edu (Michael J Graven)
Subject: Re: develop Cx negs??????
Originator: mjg@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: mjg@nwu.edu (Michael J Graven)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:21:06 GMT

Danny (U3C@psuvm.psu.edu) writes:

> Does anyone know where I can send these negatives to have them developed??

It's been a while since I posted this -- about a year and a half, I think --
so some of the information may be a bit dated.  Better than no information,
though.

--mjg

>                             Danny   U3C at PSUVM


LABORATORIES OFFERING PROCESSES E-4, C-22, K-12, EA-5, AND EM-24/25

All addresses are USA unless otherwise noted.

Mr. Robert Dock		Processes:
Rocky Mountain Film Lab		E-4: 135-size every Friday, others 2 weeks
145 Madison St			C-22: 6 weeks
Denver, CO  80206		K-12: return b/w negs and prints
(303) 399-6444			EA-5: 2 weeks
				EM-24/25: once a quarter


Mr. Larry Polk		Processes:
Kolor Print, Inc.		E-4, EM-24/25, other movie: 3 weeks
2121 Thayer St			C-22: 2 weeks
Little Rock, AR  72202
(501) 375-5581

Mr. David W. White	Process E-4: June through September only, 2 weeks
White's Camera Shop		
216 W 8th St
P.O. Box 497
Columbia, TN  38401
(615) 381-1240

Raymond Lund, RBP, FBPA	Process E-4: 1 day in-house
The Johns Hopkins Univ.
Dept. of Pathology
100 Pathology Bldg.
600 N Wolfe St
Baltimore, MD  21205
(301) 955-3843

Mr. Larry M. Bauer	Precision processing of Kodak Ektachrome 
Criterion Photoworks	    Infrared Film 2236 only
P.O. Box 007			
119 E 4th
Minden, NE  68959
(308) 832-2100

Mr. Nick Takton		Process:
Sundance Photo, Inc.		C-22: 2-3 working days, in-house
Industrial Drive
Jackson, WI  53037
(414) 342-5678

Ms. Debbie Marchi	Processes:
HAS Images, Inc.		EA-5, C-22: 1 day in-house
136 N St. Clair Street		
Suite 300
Dayton, OH  45402
(513) 222-3856

Mr. Chris Barnard	Processes:
Photo Science, Inc		EA-5, Aeroneg, b/w aerial film: 1 day in-house
7840 Airpark Rd			Mostly aerial (9.5") film processing
Gaithersburg, MD  20879
(301) 948-8550

W. A. C. Corporation	Process:
520 Cogner Ave			EA-5: 2-3 days in-house
Eugene, OR  97402
(503) 342-5169

Precision Photo Lab	Process:
5758 N Webster St		EA-5: same-day or 24 hours in-house.
P.O. Box 14595
Datyon, OH  45414
(513) 898-7450

Chambless Productions	Processes:
2488 Jewel St			EM-24/25, ME-4, ECO-3, ES-8: as demand permits,
Atlanta, GA  30344		usually about every 4-6 weeks
(404) 767-5210

"Please note:  This information is provided as a service.  It does not
 imply recommendation by Eastman Kodak Company, nor reflect upon the
 quality of products/services offered."

This information is from Kodak Publication E-531, revision 12/90(0791z).
I last verified it personally in July, 1991.  Call Kodak's Information 
Center in Rochester, NY toll-free in the U.S. at 1-800-242-2424.

-- 
-Michael                                        "The ball shall be spherical."
mjg@nwu.edu                        -- NCAA basketball regulations, rule 1.1.14
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ychen@hubcap.clemson.edu (Eric Chen)
Subject: Hasselblad 500 ELM etc For Sale $7000
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson SC
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:20:13 GMT

I have a photographer friend he is selling his Hasselblad equipments
He is going to sell for a while set, all in mint condition.

He was telling me to post as following:
	Hasselblad 500 ELM grey, 20 years special ann ed.
	Hasselblad 500 CX
	Hasselblad 50, 80, 150, 250 lenses
	Two backs & all the other accessories
Everything come with warrenty, mint 

I will transfer the questions and offers to him.

Thanks

Eric
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Subject: Re: A photographer's story
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:59:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.040746.14397@odin.corp.sgi.com> donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis) writes:
>I think you've underestimated most of us!
>
>You have pointed out a couple of things that can be expressed in other
>ways, though.  For example, you can choose any particular photographer,
>and try to measure how much he or she likes equipment.  There are those
>who just don't care about the camera or lenses, as long as they work,
>and others who devote themselves to understanding all of the latest
>technology.....

   I am not sure I understand exactly what you are getting at and I
am not sure you understand what exactly what I am getting at.
Mostly I wrote a funny story with quit a bit of sarcasm.  I am not
saying one form of photography (photojournalist, landscape, portrait)
is better then another.  I am saying different people have different
standard and are looking for different things when they look at a
photograph (thus the you can't make good enlargement with 35mm vs oh
I can too flame war, and the PhotoCD sucks vs PhotoCD good flame war).
Since I know you are into the wiggler, I should clarify
that I am not say large formats are bad.  I am saying people who
are into large format have rather high standards.  They are usually
not satisify unless they get the image just right (which I think it's
the only way to become a good photographer).   And I am pretty
sure most large format shooter went throught the 35mm stage, possibly
the medium format stage, then they are finally happy at the 4x5 stage.
You guys went through those stages with improving the quality of your
images in mind.  Sport photographers and portrait photographers
went through their stages with improving their picture quality in
mind.  Even the point and shooters are after the final product, a
picture they are happy with.  But people who are too busy studying
camera specs are not photographers, they are gadget lovers.   Me,
since I can't afford a 4x5 (and believe me, if I can afford one,
I'll buy one), I shot TP and Fujichrome50 and try to do the best with
what I have.  As for reading, I much prefer looking at pictures then
reading specs.  Just think of all the time wasted in the Nikon vs Canon
war, had the participants (me included, but I wan't arguing about
Canon vs Nikon, I was arguing about the merit of focusing aids) spent
their time looking at pictures or betting yet, shooting some pictures,
maybe their photographic skill would have improved.  Just exactly what
useful bit, if any, came out of the hundreds of messages on that threat
I don't know.

-Anthony
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: fjcppr@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: How do they know?
Reply-To: fjcppr@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 05:44:31 GMT

In the most recent Del's ad in Shutterbug, Tony "who knows Leica" says
that you can stand on a Leica without damaging it. Should I believe
that Tony or someone he knows has actually done that? Has anyone
out there in Rec.photo every stood on any camera? If so, please 
include your weight in your reply. Also, did you stand on the camera
with its bottom or its back to the ground? 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 20:30:17 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Subject: Re: A photographer's story
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Keywords: 

tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:
>   I am going to catch a lot of flame for this, but I think some
>of you will like it, so here it goes.

Hey, I thought it was a riot!

>   Seems to me most people who are interested enough in photography to
>scrap up what little money they have to buy a "real" camera when they
>were in high school or college started out dreaming about being a
>photojournalist. 

Not really.

>  Sometime around puberty,
>they dream about photographing beautiful women and have their pictures
>published in Sport Illustrated or something even more interesting. 

No comment.

> In
>rare occasion, some will dream about lugging 50lb of large format
>equipment and that damn wooden tripod wandering around in the middle of
>nowhere, waiting until the light is just right, the puff of cloud is
>at just the right place, and sell their pictures for $5000 a piece.

Ahhhhh........  NOW you're talking!

>   In most cases, we read magazines like pop phot, find out what each
>and every camera can and cannot do, I mean, we know those spec so well,
>we can recite them on the spot. 

Hey, I used to be like that!  Used to read Modern Photography, though.

[Disillusionment sets in after the first ``dream'' camera produces less
than stellar results]
>For the Ansal Adams wannabes,
>they are a unhappy bunch, their prints just don't look good. 

This is *always* true! The only time we Ansel Adams wannabes are happy
is when we're lugging 50lb of large format equipment and big ol' tripod
wandering around in the middle of nowhere, waiting until the light is
just right and the puff of cloud is at just the right place.  Some of us
are happy just to be lugging around the equipment in the middle of
nowhere, and will still be happy even if the light is never quite right
and that puff of cloud never moves.  Frustrated, perhaps, but still happy.
And if we could ever sell one of our pictures for $5000 a piece?  Yikes!
We could make a down payment on a Technikardan or something!!

;^)

>The Ansal Adams wannabes finally got their 4x5 camera and even a Minolta
>45A, some stick with b&w, other tinker with cibachrome, the few
>who've been drop head first from the upper bunk too many times print
>dye transfer for a living.  Maybe they didn't sell any print for
>$5000 a piece, but they are happy.  Those who have a life subscription
>to pop photo, well, they haven't touch anything more then a point and
>shoot in over 20 years.

You are obviously a large-format photographer.

Thanks for the chuckle.

Geoff ``I haven't tried dye transfer... yet'' Allen

-- 
Geoff Allen          \ The main difference between me and the student
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \  is that I have simply made more mistakes.
geoff@pauling.inel.gov \    --George Drennan on teaching photo workshops.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:09:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.161527.12775@eua.ericsson.se> Harald.Brandt@eua.ericsson.se (Harald Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.031906.10270@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> 
>kram@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kameswar.r.ati) writes:
>release downward. (If you are interested, I bought: 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM, 
>24-35/2.8L, 200/2.8L, Extender X1.4.  Well it WAS expensive!!  I bought it 
>in the UK and got the sales tax back (17.5%)).

    You are one of the few people who actually bought good lens with
a fancy body.  Most people seems to buy a fancy body so they talk about
all the creature features and slap on the cheapest zoom they can find.
On rare occasion, they may actually find time to take a few pictures :)
Now what I want to know is, is it really a 24-35L or is it a 20-35L or
are there actually 2 different lens?  I know Canon used to make a
24-35L for the FD mount and I have seen ads for a 20-35L for FD and EF
mount, but I don't think the FD 20-35L nor the EF 24-35L actually exist.
Reason I ask is I was thinking about getting the FD 20-35L when I saw
the ad, but the only wide L zooms I've seen in real life are 24-35, since
I already have the 24L, I can't justify spending $1000 on a lens unless
it goes down to 20mm.

-Anthony

PS When are you getting the 85L to complete you lens inventory :)
From: jxu@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (james)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Nikon N6006/AF28-70
Date: 21 Dec 92 06:43:46 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX


 I am going to purchase a Nikon N6006 with Nikkor AF 28-70 lens.
Now I have three questions:

	1. Is $289 a good buy for AF 28-70 Nikkor from mail order ?
	2. Should I buy a UV filter ? (saleperson strongly recommanded it)
	3. I thought the battery should go with the body, but the saleperson
	   asked me to pay additional $10 for it?  Maybe I was wrong,
	   Could any body correct me?

Any information will be greatly appreciated.

Jim
From: auyeung@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Tak [UlTech] AuYeung)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Canon Elan - leave leader out?
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:08:51 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of California, Davis

In article <1992Dec29.090517.12765@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>In <92364.114510MPOISSON@ESOC.BITNET> <MPOISSON@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
>
>[...]
>
>Ultimately, the manufacturer out to make more money than the next guy.
>If it finds that it can make more by forcing buyers to move "upscale"
>what can one do?
>
>ACS

How about making fully programmable camera bodies?  I work at a
real-time controler company, and the idea of programming a camera body
looks pretty appealing.  I imagine (dream) one can get the bottons,
dials, photosensors, focusing aides as inputs, and control the shutter
speed, aperture, film winding and even the flash as outputs.  A
wireless remote serial link can serve as the interface.  

Not entirely impossible, but the camera makers would probably lose
profit or make this kind of camera extremely expensive...

--Tak
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: LRCHEN@brownvm.brown.edu (Lingrong Chen)
Subject: How do I join the photographic club?
Organization: Brown University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:04:34 GMT

Hi, there. I am a non-serious amature photographer, not so good
but occasionally have a good shot. I am wondering now whether
there is a serious photo club which can be jointed so that one
has a nice  enviroment to improve the skills, meanwhile exchange the
ideas.  Such a club also would organize a photo tour once a while in
a year, thus people have a chance to catch nice spot without
searching around.  Any information about these clubs will be welcomed.
Meanwhile, I live at Providence so any locations about these clubs
had better be around Boston or even closer.

Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Color balance setups for specific films
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 08:44:39 GMT

rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs) writes:

... delided ...

:    E.  The papers used by most processors could not handle the brightness
:        range of sunlit and shadow portions of 12.

This is not unusual. I don't know of any paper than can handle the contrast
range that a negative can record.

:    F.  Even though the gray card frames were bracketed, they all appeared
:        identical in the prints.

This would show that the automated equipment is working correctly. Whether
it produces a gray image, or not, is another matter. 

I only use the prints from the lab as proofs. I make my own enlargements.

 ... delided ...

: There are so many variables in age of film, batch, storage conditions,
: film processing - including the analyzer running amok - that there is NO
: substitution for an intelligent, live person to look at the prints and
: judge whether or not they are reasonable.  If your lab has such a person,
: great.  If it doesn't, then YOU are that person.  Expect reasonable quality.
: If your lab doesn't deliver it, change to a different lab.

If they did that, then the cost of the prints would increase drastically.
Don't expect it for batch processing/printing.

You get such service, if you are getting re-prints, or individual prints
of particular negatives. You also pay more for such prints.

Bill