HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: parsons1@applelink.apple.COM (Don Parsons)
Subject: Re: Kodak PhotoCD in MAC IIvx
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:24:35 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Nov18.173219.28450@Princeton.EDU>, sikorski@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward M. Sikorski) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide me with info regarding the Kodak PhotoCD format?

"format" could refer to many different things, but here are answers to some of
those possibilities:

The format of the disk is CD-ROM XA Mode 2 Form 1 ("Orange Book") and
CD-I ("Green Book"). I'm not sure if it has a full implementation
"Green Book" though. I'll leave that for someone from Kodak.

The format of the images is PhotoYCC, which is Kodak's own proprietary
format. (A sore subject in this newsgroup.)

> I am acquiring a MacIIvx with the PhotoCD compatible drive and need to
> know if Kodak processes E-6 slides and will transfer them to the CD.

Yes. The "consumer" PhotoCD supports all 35mm formats (slides & negs. in
B&W and color). The processing that film requires (E-6, K-14, C-41, etc)
does not determine if an image can or cannot be scanned onto PhotoCD.
Pro PhotoCD will support up to 4x5 negs and slide.

> If The PhotoCD is not limited to 35mm print negs, what the aspect ratio is
> of the image.

35mm aspect ratio is 2 x 3. This is also the case for PhotoCD. For Pro
PhotoCD, I'm not sure what other ratios may be possible. I assume it will
depend on the aspect ratio of the image being scanned.

> And if the MACIIvx imports the image directly in without
> a scanner (slide or flat copy).

I'm really not sure what you are asking for here, but images on a PhotoCD
are digital data. The Mac IIvx, or any other Macintosh model, can read that
data. With CD Setup 4.0.1 and QuickTime 1.5, you get PhotoCD access on the
desktop, and applications that are able to read PICT files can read PhotoCD
images directly. Some applications will have their own PhotoCD support. I
would expect that those applications will offer more sophisticated access
of PhotoYCC files.

> I guess info on Kodak contacts and Apple Image specialists would be helpful.

If you mean support contacts, your best bet would be to continue posting
questions to rec.photo. With rec.photo, you will be able to tap more expertise
than you will find at any other single source. 



Don Parsons
From: monta@image.mit.edu (Peter Monta)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Degrees Kelvin
Date: 24 Nov 92 05:36:51 GMT
	<By6zKw.1KA@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: MIT Advanced Television Research Program

peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes:

> What is the basis for defining different light temperatures by degrees
> Kelvin?
>
> Can you recommend a decent book for understanding light/optics/photochemistry
> that doesn't require a major theoretical background?

A light source described as, say, 5000 K, means that the spectrum of
a blackbody at that temperature is the closest thermal match to the
light source.  A blackbody is pretty much what it sounds like:
something which absorbs (and emits) perfectly.  A tungsten filament
comes close to this (it's more gray than black), and it's
for tungsten sources that these temperatures are most useful.
Xenon flashlamps at high pressure are also pretty much thermal.

As a rough guide, 3200 K might be a typical light bulb, 3400 K a
"photoflood", 5500 K daylight, and anything hotter on the blue-white
side of white.

Nonthermal sources, like fluorescent lamps and CRTs, are badly
approximated by blackbodies.  They can't be characterized by
a single parameter; you have to give the whole spectrum.
I'm not really sure how the "best match" is computed:  best
psychovisual match?  Best least-squares match?

Minor nit:  the SI folks say that the unit is the "Kelvin", so
that it's 300 Kelvin, not 300 "degrees Kelvin".

For references, probably a book on color printing would have the
best practical discussions of light sources and filtering.
Pratt's digital image processing book has a nice chapter on
color vision.  Kodak's film literature explains in fair detail
the way color films are "balanced" for different sources.

Peter Monta   monta@image.mit.edu
MIT Advanced Television Research Program
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: _Consumer Reports_ believable on cameras?
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:25:13 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <1992Nov17.154623.44888@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>,
1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) wrote:

>Do people with real knowledge of
> cameras think _CU_ does a good job?

Christopher-

I hope those people with the "real" knowlege will speak up!  I certainly
can't answer your general question about specific SLR's.

With regard to CU, my impression is that they have sufficient expertise to
rate cameras as a consumer product.  While I don't respect their testing as
much as I did the old MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY, they probably have the sense of
what typical consumers want, that we fanatics lack.

And so, any one of us that tries to help you decide, must first determine
the level of photographic expertise of the person who will receive the
camera.  My limited impression of Yashica, is that the equipment is
technically very good, but not geared to the needs of a beginner.  A person
who can cope with that, may appreciate it more than someone who just wants
to point-and-shoot.  How does this agree with CU's report?

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Re: SB-24 Speedlite, opinions sought
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:55:16 GMT

| Somebody mentioned that the SB-25 has red eye reduction which the SB-24
| doesn't have. The Redeye reduction function only operates with the
| new F-90 camera.

It's hard to imagine anyone having a red-eye problem with a flash as
versatile as the SB-24. It seems to me that the SB-25's "red-eye reduction" 
is like the N90's multiple program modes--both appear to be concessions
to the (sometimes mindless) Feature War.
					   -Alan
From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: What is a good handy slide-viewer
Date: 17 Nov 1992 16:19:00 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

I'm looking for a cheap handy slide-viewer.

E.g. on p209 of the Dec 1992 Popular Photography, Adorama advertises
a 8.5 x 11 color corrected "light box" (is that it?) for $40.
Is this any good?  A bit smaller is fine by me, but bigger than 4x6
is essential.

Battery-operated is an additional plus.

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@cs.cornell.edu (Jeffrey Chen)
Subject: EF70-210 3 Types?
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:10:09 GMT

I don't get it: I've seen advertised 3 different 70-210 lenses all
purportedly made by Canon, can anyone explain differences betweeen
them?

70-210 f4.0 USM
70-210 f3.5-4.5 USM
70-210 f4.0 (not USM)

I can understand why having the first two, but why a USM/non USM
version of the same lens? Anyone have hands on experience with any/all
of these lenses?

Thanks,

--Jeff Chen
  jchen@cs.cornell.edu

-- 
____________________________________________________________________
Jeffrey Chen                                Home Telephone: 272-4221
CS Wandering Ghost                           105 N. Quarry St. Apt 2
                                                    Ithaca, NY 14850
From: knoche@desert-rat.West.Sun.COM (Bill Knoche SUN Phoenix SE 602-275-5537 x24)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Air sickness question
Date: 17 Nov 1992 00:08:11 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: knoche@desert-rat.West.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: desert-rat.west.sun.com

I agree totally with geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) concerning his
comments on flying and photography.

In fact spend as little time as possible looking through the view
finder.  It turns out that our orientation is actually more sensitive
to visual cues than anything else. By looking through the viewfinder
your brain correlates the bumpy, vibrating, ride with a visual images
that are also moving very rapidly. The effect gets worse as the focal
length increases.  The reason you should look at far away things, like
the horizon, is that they don't appear to move very fast and should
calm things down some.

You can generally pre-focus at infinity and tape the barrel so that it
won't move, unless you are flying much to low to be legal or are trying
to photograph two planes trying to run into each other (you and the guy
you are flying in formation with...). This minimizes the messing around
while looking through the view finder.

I might add that while it may seem counter intuitive, eat and drink
something. It is very easy to become dehydrated while flying. I find
that non-carbonated cold drinks, like apple juice, work well for me.
Something to eat helps settle the stomach and seems to give it some to
do besides complain. I have found that moving around, even if it is
only stretching helps a great deal.

Hypoxia also will also result in that lovely feeling. Breathe well, breathe
often.


---
______________________________________________________
William D. Knoche		Bill.Knoche@Sun.COM
Systems Engineer
Sun Microsystems, Inc.		Phone:  602-275-4242
410 N. 44th St., Suite 140	Fax:    602-220-4453
Phoenix, Arizona 85008
______________________________________________________
From: v462etnn@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (David L Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Setting up a darkroom...
Summary: (help!)
Keywords: fogging, developers, darkroom, old enlargers
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:55:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1e8meuINNlt8@uwm.edu>, dannmann@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Daniel Harley Wagner) writes...
>I purchased a used Opemus IIa enlarger, made in Czechoslovakia, probably
>before I was born.  (judging from the yellowing of the warranty and the
>style of the typography..)  This enlarger seems to have been set up to
>enlarge 2.25 x 2.25 negatives, which might have suited when it was new, but
>causes me to have a minor headache.  While the negative carrier has glass
>plates in it to hold a 35mm negative with, the lens isn't exactly suited to
>larger enlargements. (With the head at the top of the pole, I can MAYBE make
>a little smaller than an 8x10 enlargement, with no room for cropping.) The
>lens is currently a 75mm lens.

I used to have this enlarger about 4-5 years ago.  I was pleased with the 
quality, amused by the manufacturer.  You're right, it seemed like an odd size
to me.  At the time, though, I didn't have enough $ for another
lens.  What you should be able to do, though, is remove the
enlarger column from the baseboard, c-clamp it to a table edge,
then make prints.  I used 6x6 (aka 2.25x2.25) at the time,
tried a few 35mm negs.

Make sure you take the thing apart to clean it.  The entire condenser lens
assembly should come right out.  Disassemble it to get at both lenses.  While 
you're at it, remove the enlarging lens and use Dust-Off or something
to get the dirt out of the inside of the enlarger.

BTW, leave the ground glass in the enlarger.  Use only mild cleaners to clean
your enlarger (no Fantastik, try Windex or other ammonia based cleaner).

Also, you could replace the lens w/ a camera lens.  Finding one to match the 
Also, you could replace the lens w/ a camera lens.  Finding one to match the
screw threads might be a problem.  Darkroom Photography (or Camera & Darkroom)
ran a series of articles on building a cardboard enlarger using a camera lens.

>LED on the computer next to the enlarging table, or perhaps the flourescent
^^^^ the LED should put out a few milliwatts, not watts.  Put some black 
electrical tape over it if you want to.  Green LEDs are in the range that B&W
paper is esp. sensitive to.  Replace it w/ a red one if you want.  It's not
to hard - may be a pain in the neck disassembling your computer just to change
the LED.  Radio Shack sells plenty of replacements.  Just about any of their
red LEDs (in the right size and shape) would do the trick.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From:  ()
Subject: Re: Nikon N8008S vs. N90 - opinions wanted
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: University of Oslo
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:27:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.200641.4118@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
krish@leland.Stanford.EDU (venkatraman) wrote:
> Any comments, observations, experience with, etc., on the various low Nikon
> zooms (29-70, 28-85, 35-70, 35-105 and 35-135) would also be appreciated.

The 28-70 is the better of the two lenses going down to 28mm. And if you
are going to buy N90 you have to get this lens cause it is the only of the
lenses you mension that is compatible with N90`s 3D lightmetering system!
The other two lenses is fine lenses but IMHO you need somewhat the 28mm and
will surely miss it if you don`t have it. I baught the 28-85 and regret
because 28-70 is better  optical, and it is smaller, lighter and faster
focusing. I have the 8008s and my experince is that it is a great camera.
But I have seen the N90 and the AF is faster and more accurate so maybe if
I was going to buy now I would go for the N90. One thing that I *hate* with
the N90 is all the programs. Just a waste of money to make such things.

> 
> thanks,
> 

You`re welcome.

> nitin
> 
> ps. I realize of course that a subjective question like this is against all
>     that is good by netiquette and I'll probably burn in hell for it but
>     what the heck, I've already sold my soul to rock and roll and besides,
>     you can always find redemption in southern california :-) :-).
> 
> nitinm@kronos.ap.nisd.cam.unisys.com

-- ole joergen --
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.sex,alt.sex.movies
From: rkrouse@netcom.com (Robert K. Rouse)
Subject: WPFG December Shoot
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:47:29 GMT


        Western Portrait and Figure Group

          Legion of Honor Group Shoot



     The next WPFG Figure Group Shoot is planned for
 the San Francisco Legion Of Honor on Sunday,
December 6, from 1 to 4 p.m..  The LegionOf Honor is
closed for renovations so we will be working outdoors
around the structures on the grounds.  The weather is
changing, so that in case of rainor cold, the alternative
will be to work instead inside the San Francisco WPFG
studio on December 6.       

   This shoot will occur if there are sufficient advanced
reservations. As always, the advanced reservations
allow us to reserve time from models. As astandard WPFG
shoot, the fees will be $30 for full members and $60 for
correspondence members.  Reservation deadline by check to
the WPFG Post Office Box is December 2.  Attendees will
meet at the WPFG studio no later then 12:45 noon, so
call any WPFG contact for directions.


	WPFG, P.O. Box 145, Concord, CA 94522
	Patrick Gagne (510)671-7762 evenings



-- 
            
	Robert K. Rouse		rkrouse@netcom.com

  "No creature with the right values is an alien to me."
						John Salter
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 Repair
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:50:42 GMT
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department

In article <BxttCw.BBq@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>
>My Pentax 67 has a small chain hanging down behind the
>lens (which wasn't there before.)  I live in NYC - does
>anyone have a suggestion about where I can take it to get
>it repaired?

NYC?  Are you kidding?  One of the best repair shops in the world is
just uptown of your office:
  Professional Camera Repair (formerly Marty Forscher's)
  37 (?) W. 47th Street (between 5th and 6th Avenues)
  (9th floor?)

I'm just a satisfied customer.  There are lots of us.

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought
Reply-To: jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 03:29:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.091725.21182@sactoh0.sac.ca.us> mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John) writes:
>
>I sold a EF80-200 f/2.8 L lens to a customer for $1300.
......
>What are these lenses selling for in other parts of the country?
>
>(PS- I work at a camera retailer)
>
Don't mean to offend you in any way but don't you guys follow mail order ads?
This lens runs about $900-$950 in mail order stores. You did well on that
deal.

If it is not a business secret, what was your cost for that lens?

Jason Chen

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky)
Subject: Re: Opinions on Nikkor 50/1.2 AIS vs 50/1.4 AIS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:27:31 GMT

In article <MULLINS.92Nov14140628@media-lab.media.mit.edu> mullins@media.mit.edu (Atty Mullins) writes:
>
>Anyone out there have any opinions on these in terms of optical
>quality, i.e., sharpness ? I'm considering buying one and can't
>justify the extra $$ for the 1.2 unless it is also sharper.
>

the 1.2 is not sharper than the 1.4.   and, it provides a
nice bit of distortion at the edges of the frame to boot.
the speed improvement isn't that big an advantage.

personally, i'd consider whether the 1.4 made more sense than
the 1.8...

duane
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: candid photo lens? is there such a thing?
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:31:21 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Uk company Jessop market an attachment for the front of the lens which makes 
it look looooooong but which actually contains a mirror (45deg) so that your 
subject is at 90degrees to the apparent direction of aim.




  From the UK phone book Yellow Pages:  BORING - see Civil Engineers   

  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
  D.Budd@mcc.ac.uk                                          fax 6040
From: alan@lancaster.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: photography in ice rinks
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:36:17 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation

I would like to take photos of my kids playing hockey but so far my
results are less than perfect.  Lighting conditions in most rinks are
pretty poor;  fluorescent tubes that may or may not be working, reflecting
off the ice surface, and the walls.  I'm interested in prints and have tried
both Kodak and Fuji 400 film without a flash.  The results are a greenish
tint to the picture.  Would a flash fix this?  I've used a Canon T50
(my wife's camera) that is auto everything and my Hassie 1000F which is
auto nothing and have the same results with both.  Should I be using a
flash, higher speed film, or what? 

Thanks for any help.

-- 
Alan Hepburn           "An ignorant person is one who doesn't know
National Semiconductor       what you have just found out."
Santa Clara, Ca              
alan@berlioz.nsc.com                              Will Rogers
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rfrench@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Robert S. French)
Subject: Question about popularity of Canon EOS 10S
Keywords: EOS 10S
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:02:22 GMT

This may be an odd question, but over the past year or two I've
noticed that there is kind of a "black hole" where the Canon EOS 10S
is concerned.  Whenever you pick up a magazine the pros and the
columns always talk about Minoltas, or Nikons, or the Canon Rebel or
Elan, or maybe even the EOS 630, but basically NEVER is the 10S
mentioned.  Then, every once in a while (like Pop Photog 12/92) there
will be an article reviewing the top N cameras of the year, and the
10S will be right up there near the top, with a much more reasonable
price than most other cameras in its class (current mail order price
~$350).

I've had a 10S for 2 years now, and think it's a wonderful camera.  It
has all the features I could possibly want, including things like
mirror lockup, 5 fps film advance, DOF preview, interval timer, etc.,
and has been totally reliable on several trips.

Why is it so ignored?

		Rob
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: prodger@leland.Stanford.EDU (phillip prodger)
Subject: How to remove cloth tape
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:54:16 GMT

> Seems as though you ought to take this up with the framer - your
> instructions obviously were not followed.

I am tempted to.  But I don't really trust the framer.  I am coming
to understand that most framers don't even think of photographs as
art.  I really don't know what care to expect from him in removing
the tape.

> Also, you will need to find out what kind of tape was used from
> your framer.  My (optimistic) guess is that the tape has a water
> soluble adhesive, so moistening will allow the tape to be peeled
> off after a few minutes' wait.  

As far as I can tell, it is standard, archival, water-based cloth tape.

As far as mointening the tape, how does one do this without damaging
(or even disturbing) the print?  And if I do get to the point of 
peeling off the tape, how do I ensure that I remove all the glue from
the print too?

There must be a convention for doing this.

> then you are dealing with a framer who does not know his business.
> (common enough).

Three cheers!  Especially when it comes to photography.  Seems there
is a general ignorance even among professionals when it comes to
proper care and handling of photographs.  Even extremely valuable
images get treated like 'snaps'.  Not like that's a justification,
either.


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: New EF 1200 soon
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:29:00 GMT

NEW, or soon to be, a EF 1200mm f5.6L. HUGE, white, HEAVY, $$$. Prototype
at Photokina I believe.

Speaking of lenses, could some kind sole please post/mail a copy of the EF
lens list I did some time ago... The floppy i saved it on says rude DOS like
things whren I try to read it :"(( This si Most embarasing...

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Resolution of Lens ???
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:42:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <Bxw69K.309@world.std.com> dp@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) writes:
>When I have had lenses tested, they were used in projection - an
>etched resolution test reticle was placed at the film plane, with a
>collimated light source behind it (the reticle was a peice of
>aluminized glass - it looked a whole lot like a mask from an IC shop).
>That was projected onto a screen, with the distance varied to get it
>all to fit. The person then examined the projected image to see what
>the smallest clearly projected portion of the chart was. He could make
>judgement about field flatness, chromatic aberration, flare, and
>lens alignment in addition to resolution. No math or measurment was
>required to come up with the resolution number - you just read off the
>number next to the last clearly resolved pattern. 
>
><dp>


I've got a question of the optics experts on the net.  When you use a
projection reticle like this the light going through one piece of the
reticle and a neighboring piece will be coherent.  (Well, coherent
might not be the right word.)  So there will be interference effects.
But light from different points of a subject coming the other way will
not have any iterference effects.  How does this affect the results?

  -- David Jacobson