Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:18:54 -0400 Michael Creem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The 120 and 620 film and backing paper are the same size but the spools are very different in size and are not interchangable. 620 is no longer made by Kodak. Michael Correct. 620 spools have a narrow solid metal core, about 3/16 diameter. You can respool 120 yourself if you have some 620 spools, a darkroom and are sufficiently bored with easy stuff like scanning. I still have my Box Brownie 620 here g Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
Michael wrote: The 120 and 620 film and backing paper are the same size but the spools are very different in size and are not interchangable. 620 is no longer made by Kodak. and Laurie wrote: The film sizes for 120 and 620 are the same; it is only the spools that were different and which accounted for the change in product number. Oh,oh. I knew I was probably wrong about this almost as soon as I punched the send button. Now everyone knows how long it's been since I've actually been exposed to medium format film! Unfortunately, I'd have to drive 70 miles--and probably twice that--to buy a roll of 120 film of any flavor, upping the price by 3 gallons of gas! I have a flock of 620's--all pre-1960--none of which are actually good enough to buy film for other than out of curiosity. The 620 spool is 7/8 diameter. It takes fewer pictures that 120, which means it would be smaller--by how much, I'm not sure, since I don't have a 120 in my collection. *Should* have, certainly, but don't. *Some* of the cameras will accommodate a larger spool. The cheaper ones will not. Eastman Kodak, to their credit, used to make up special orders of discontinued film sizes for Old Camera buffs. I don't know if they still do--I haven't actively pursued it. An earlier post mentioned that 120 can be re-spooled to 620. I may be the only Old Stuff collector on this list. But if anyone thinks *filmscanners* are defensive about their choices, you should visit a meeting of Old Camera Collectors!! Uhm, no, you probably shouldn't. ;-) Best regards--LRA BTW--$200 doesn't seem like a bad price for a working Medalist II. If you really want one, that is. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control Rich wrote: Can you still get 620 film? AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not mistaken. I think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras. Best regards--LRA On 07 Jun 2001 16:01:12 EDT Richard Starr wrote: --- You wrote: The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what Rich is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth at least $1000, according to my book. In that case, I'd *definitely* like to take a look at it! :-) Best regards--LRA --- end of quoted material --- I was taking about the Medalist II as it turns out. I checked Ebay and they are running for a couple of hundred dollars as it appears. Can you still get 620 film? Rich Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
Unfortunately, I'd have to drive 70 miles--and probably twice that--to buy a roll of 120 film of any flavor, upping the price by 3 gallons of gas! Unfortunately, unless you live in a big commercial metropolitan area, anyone would have to drive a few miles to get to a retail outlet that carries 120 or 220 film, which is why most people order it via mail order or off the net and have it sent to them at their locations. The 620 spool is 7/8 diameter. It takes fewer pictures that 120, which means it would be smaller--by how much, I'm not sure, The spool size does not really impact on the size of the frames or the number of pictures per roll. It is the size of the camera's aperture which determines the size and number of pictures that will fit on a given length of film for the most part which why you can shoot 10 frames of 6cm x 7cm images on a 120 roll, 12 frames of 6cm x 6 cm on a roll of 120, 15 frames of 6cm x 4.5 cm images on a roll of 120 film, or only 8 6cm x 9cm frames on the 120 roll. Obviously the 6 cm dimension remains the constant. Rolls of 220 film the same as 120 film but twice as long; they fit on the same spool as 120 film. The difference is that unlike 120 film there is no paper backing for the film only paper leader at both ends of the roll. I believe that the reason that you got fewer images on a 620 roll was that the film was thicker which meant that there was not as much of it in a roll in terms of length. As for the differences in diameters of the spools, I do not know what the difference is myself since I do not have a spool handy at present; but any difference in spool diameter was so as to enable it to hold the thicker film in a more or less equivalent amount. With respect to the difference in camera backs for 620, 120, and 220, it has to do with the pressure plates which hold the film flat with thinner film like 120 requiring more pressure than 120 film because it does not have the extra thickness created by the addition of backing paper. I assume that the 620 required even less pressure because of its added thickness of the film plus the additional thickness created by its paper backing. This, of course, could be a drawback to using 120 film in a 620 camera but not as much as trying to use 220 film in that 620 camera since the differences in film thickness and backing paper thickness are more or less negligible while the difference between having and not having the paper backing is significant. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control Michael wrote: The 120 and 620 film and backing paper are the same size but the spools are very different in size and are not interchangable. 620 is no longer made by Kodak. and Laurie wrote: The film sizes for 120 and 620 are the same; it is only the spools that were different and which accounted for the change in product number. Oh,oh. I knew I was probably wrong about this almost as soon as I punched the send button. Now everyone knows how long it's been since I've actually been exposed to medium format film! Unfortunately, I'd have to drive 70 miles--and probably twice that--to buy a roll of 120 film of any flavor, upping the price by 3 gallons of gas! I have a flock of 620's--all pre-1960--none of which are actually good enough to buy film for other than out of curiosity. The 620 spool is 7/8 diameter. It takes fewer pictures that 120, which means it would be smaller--by how much, I'm not sure, since I don't have a 120 in my collection. *Should* have, certainly, but don't. *Some* of the cameras will accommodate a larger spool. The cheaper ones will not. Eastman Kodak, to their credit, used to make up special orders of discontinued film sizes for Old Camera buffs. I don't know if they still do--I haven't actively pursued it. An earlier post mentioned that 120 can be re-spooled to 620. I may be the only Old Stuff collector on this list. But if anyone thinks *filmscanners* are defensive about their choices, you should visit a meeting of Old Camera Collectors!! Uhm, no, you probably shouldn't. ;-) Best regards--LRA BTW--$200 doesn't seem like a bad price for a working Medalist II. If you really want one, that is. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control Rich wrote: Can you still get 620 film? AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not mistaken. I think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras. Best regards--LRA On 07 Jun 2001 16:01:12 EDT Richard Starr wrote: --- You wrote: The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what Rich is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth at least $1000, according to my book
Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
120 and 620 film were the same size width, length and thickness. The only difference was the shape of the spools. The 620 spool had a very thin core and slim ends. The 120 spool had a thicker core and fatter ends. The 620 spool and film together made a more compact package than a spool of 120. If I remember correctly, there were problems with film curl with 620. There were very few high end camera that used 620. Hasselblad always used 120. Michael
RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
Michael, I am willing to accept what you say about the thickness and length of 620 compared to 120. I just seem to remember reading and hearing that it was slightly different especially in thickness and maybe length. Well, so much for relying on memory. :-) Happy to be corrected when wrong; but my understanding as to differences in thickness would help explain curl - too bad it evidently does not fit the facts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Creem Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control 120 and 620 film were the same size width, length and thickness. The only difference was the shape of the spools. The 620 spool had a very thin core and slim ends. The 120 spool had a thicker core and fatter ends. The 620 spool and film together made a more compact package than a spool of 120. If I remember correctly, there were problems with film curl with 620. There were very few high end camera that used 620. Hasselblad always used 120. Michael
Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
Rich wrote: Can you still get 620 film? AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not mistaken. I think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras. Best regards--LRA -- On 07 Jun 2001 16:01:12 EDT Richard Starr wrote: --- You wrote: The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what Rich is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth at least $1000, according to my book. In that case, I'd *definitely* like to take a look at it! :-) Best regards--LRA --- end of quoted material --- I was taking about the Medalist II as it turns out. I checked Ebay and they are running for a couple of hundred dollars as it appears. Can you still get 620 film? Rich Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
The 120 and 620 film and backing paper are the same size but the spools are very different in size and are not interchangable. 620 is no longer made by Kodak. Michael - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you still get 620 film? AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not mistaken. I think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras.
Re: filmscanners: open and control
B.Rumary wrote: Yes I heard about that on. Apparently the copyright on Mickey Mouse cartoons is about to run out and Disney are pushing the line that it would be un-American if a national icon could be copied by nasty foreigners, etc.! They want a special exception to copyright laws, just for them, although I'm sure all the other mega corporations would soon be jumping on this band wagon! I wouldn't worry about other corporations... Disney has that covered... ...they've bought them all over the last few years ;-) Art
RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
The film sizes for 120 and 620 are the same; it is only the spools that were different and which accounted for the change in product number. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control Rich wrote: Can you still get 620 film? AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not mistaken. I think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras. Best regards--LRA -- On 07 Jun 2001 16:01:12 EDT Richard Starr wrote: --- You wrote: The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what Rich is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth at least $1000, according to my book. In that case, I'd *definitely* like to take a look at it! :-) Best regards--LRA --- end of quoted material --- I was taking about the Medalist II as it turns out. I checked Ebay and they are running for a couple of hundred dollars as it appears. Can you still get 620 film? Rich Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Croxford wrote: In most of the world artistic copyright now extends to 70 years after the death of the author. The copyright can be sold or transferred to another person or a company, or passed to the authors descendants but it still only extends to the 70 years after the death of the original author or creator. Copyright on such things as the Coca-Cola trademark goes on for ever, or at least for as long as it is still in use. Brian Rumary, England Dear Brian My bets are that copyright will keep on being extended to equal a period ten to twenty years more than the time since Walt Disney's death. Yes I heard about that on. Apparently the copyright on Mickey Mouse cartoons is about to run out and Disney are pushing the line that it would be un-American if a national icon could be copied by nasty foreigners, etc.! They want a special exception to copyright laws, just for them, although I'm sure all the other mega corporations would soon be jumping on this band wagon! With Dubya in the White House I'm sure they will soon get what they want and to hell with the rest of us. Of course the Disney trademarks and name would not be affected by the end of copyright on MM. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what Rich is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth at least $1000, according to my book. In that case, I'd *definitely* like to take a look at it! :-) Best regards--LRA -- On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 16:09:18 Hersch Nitikman wrote: I think you might be talking about the Super Kodak 620, which was apparently the first automatic exposure camera. It had a big sensor array above the lens area. It was a folder, also. Very 'advanced', but died out before long. At 02:27 PM 06/04/2001, you wrote: Richard wrote: What was that monster Kodak 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder (220 film) that they sold during the war and possibly before? Beautifully built in the US, uncoatedoptics that were quite good, it looked like a kid's toy on steriods. Oooh, that's a toughie. The Medalist was a 620, but it looks and sounds like you describe. Right years, too--1941-1946. Could also be a Duex, also 620, 1940-1946, but cheap, probably not as heavy as you describe. If you have one and send it to me, I could get a much better fix on it--I'd pay the shipping one-way. Don't ever expect to get it back, OTOH. ;-) The Retina IIIc was in fact one of the last really good cameras Kodak made, from about 1960. German-made largely, certainly the optics with a Compur shutter. Kodak also made some reasonably good reflex cameras about then. I don't have any of them, but I know of a lake where there's one at the bottom of. :-) Best regards--LRA --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Starr) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 4, 2001 7:20:37 PM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: open and control --- You wrote: Argus had almost ruled the roost for reasonably-priced 35mm with its C-Series bricks (Kodak did have the very good Retina, which was smaller, lighter...and German-made; and the Ektra-- these were in very short supply and cost $300 in the 1940's--the eauivalent of $3000 or more in today's economy). --- end of quoted material --- Lynn, What was that monster Kodak 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder (220 film) that they sold during the war and possibly before? Beautifully built in the US, uncoated optics that were quite good, it looked like a kid's toy on steriods. I had one for a while. Some years ago you could pick them up quite cheaply. I think they were intended for the military. I loved my Retina IIIC but it left static tracks on Tri X film. Made beautiful chromes. I had both auxiliary lenses too. Rich Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
--- You wrote: The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what Rich is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth at least $1000, according to my book. In that case, I'd *definitely* like to take a look at it! :-) Best regards--LRA --- end of quoted material --- I was taking about the Medalist II as it turns out. I checked Ebay and they are running for a couple of hundred dollars as it appears. Can you still get 620 film? Rich
Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
If it is any encouragement, I've heard of an outfit somewhere that re-spools 120 onto 620 rolls. Sadly, I don't know the name, but at least you know the search won't be in vain. Pat --- Richard Starr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- You wrote: The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what Rich is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth at least $1000, according to my book. In that case, I'd *definitely* like to take a look at it! :-) Best regards--LRA --- end of quoted material --- I was taking about the Medalist II as it turns out. I checked Ebay and they are running for a couple of hundred dollars as it appears. Can you still get 620 film? Rich __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In a message dated 3/6/01 10:39:50 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Brian But Daquerre's process was a technological dead-end that really had no future and so there was little call to get round it. It was expensive (it used a plate coated in metallic silver), it could only be looked at in certain viewing conditions, and there was no way to produce copies. Talbot's process negative was the one with a future. Anyway the big improvements in photographic processes happened _after_ Talbot's patents expired in the 1860s; the wet plate process, dry plates and finally film. Or you could take the view that so many studios were making big money out of Daguerrotype portraits that they didn't see that it was a blind alley until others had gone the neg/pos route. Talbot's early patents were challenged by alternatives within a couple of years. After unsuccesfully fighting off his rivals Fox Talbot concentrated on reproduction processes, which is what he seemed to have in mind when he first started his experiments. Incidentally Robert Goddard touches on another theory in his novel Into the Light which has a photographer as the central character. The book is set in the present day but flashes back a couple of centuries where a character is based on the mysterious Elizabeth Fulhame who wrote an account of photographic techniques in 1794. Agfa's original colour films also needed to be sent back to the lab for processing. I think it was Ferania who first produced a home-developing colour film, and it was Kodak's 'E process' films that first made it popular. Anyway the great majority of film users still don't do their own processing; they take it to a lab. It is only enthusiasts and some professionals who do their own processing. The general public are just not interested in mucking about with dark rooms and messy chemicals; they just want to point and shoot. Sorry I should have described it as independent labs compared to Kodak owned labs. It was Agfa's ideas that gave us the E process, including the colour coupler in the film not in the process. Yours Bob Croxford Cornwall England www.atmosphere.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Laurie Solomon wrote: currently copyrights in the US are valid for the life of the originator even if assigned to someone else, I believe, and are renewable for a limited length of time only once. I think you may be confusing copyrights for an artistic works, such as a book or piece of music, and those for trademarks etc. In most of the world artistic copyright now extends to 70 years after the death of the author. The copyright can be sold or transferred to another person or a company, or passed to the authors descendants but it still only extends to the 70 years after the death of the original author or creator. Copyright on such things as the Coca-Cola trademark goes on for ever, or at least for as long as it is still in use. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote: Studios were widespread throughout France and made a quick fortune. 400 pounds a day was achieved which was a small fortune in the mid 1800s. Some photographers are not able to charge that now! 400 pounds a _year_ was a small fortune in those days! Are you sure this is the correct amount? Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In a message dated 6/6/01 6:26:37 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In most of the world artistic copyright now extends to 70 years after the death of the author. The copyright can be sold or transferred to another person or a company, or passed to the authors descendants but it still only extends to the 70 years after the death of the original author or creator. Copyright on such things as the Coca-Cola trademark goes on for ever, or at least for as long as it is still in use. Brian Rumary, England Dear Brian My bets are that copyright will keep on being extended to equal a period ten to twenty years more than the time since Walt Disney's death. Bob Croxford Cornwall England www.atmosphere.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: open and control
I think you might be talking about the Super Kodak 620, which was apparently the first automatic exposure camera. It had a big sensor array above the lens area. It was a folder, also. Very 'advanced', but died out before long. At 02:27 PM 06/04/2001, you wrote: Richard wrote: What was that monster Kodak 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder (220 film) that they sold during the war and possibly before? Beautifully built in the US, uncoatedoptics that were quite good, it looked like a kid's toy on steriods. Oooh, that's a toughie. The Medalist was a 620, but it looks and sounds like you describe. Right years, too--1941-1946. Could also be a Duex, also 620, 1940-1946, but cheap, probably not as heavy as you describe. If you have one and send it to me, I could get a much better fix on it--I'd pay the shipping one-way. Don't ever expect to get it back, OTOH. ;-) The Retina IIIc was in fact one of the last really good cameras Kodak made, from about 1960. German-made largely, certainly the optics with a Compur shutter. Kodak also made some reasonably good reflex cameras about then. I don't have any of them, but I know of a lake where there's one at the bottom of. :-) Best regards--LRA --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Starr) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 4, 2001 7:20:37 PM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: open and control --- You wrote: Argus had almost ruled the roost for reasonably-priced 35mm with its C-Series bricks (Kodak did have the very good Retina, which was smaller, lighter...and German-made; and the Ektra-- these were in very short supply and cost $300 in the 1940's--the eauivalent of $3000 or more in today's economy). --- end of quoted material --- Lynn, What was that monster Kodak 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder (220 film) that they sold during the war and possibly before? Beautifully built in the US, uncoated optics that were quite good, it looked like a kid's toy on steriods. I had one for a while. Some years ago you could pick them up quite cheaply. I think they were intended for the military. I loved my Retina IIIC but it left static tracks on Tri X film. Made beautiful chromes. I had both auxiliary lenses too. Rich --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: open and control
Before we get into an argument that may be based in a) use of terms or b) the nature of laws in different countries, I agree with you on the specs you gave for copyrights. As for trademarks, I am not confusing them with copyrights; in the US they are two quite separate and distinct laws and legal entities. One does not copyright a trademark; one registers a trademark under the trademark laws. One uses two different notations for copyright and trademark designations. I am not questioning whether or not trademarks are forever or not; I am questioning the notion that your comments imply that trademarks are a form, type, or variation of copyright. I do not think this is the case in the world outside of the US; and I am sure it is not the case in the US. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Rumary Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: open and control In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Laurie Solomon wrote: currently copyrights in the US are valid for the life of the originator even if assigned to someone else, I believe, and are renewable for a limited length of time only once. I think you may be confusing copyrights for an artistic works, such as a book or piece of music, and those for trademarks etc. In most of the world artistic copyright now extends to 70 years after the death of the author. The copyright can be sold or transferred to another person or a company, or passed to the authors descendants but it still only extends to the 70 years after the death of the original author or creator. Copyright on such things as the Coca-Cola trademark goes on for ever, or at least for as long as it is still in use. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In a message dated 3/6/01 1:38:14 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, is Eastman Kodak supposed to be the ideal model for control? If you'd bought their stock in 1920 (or whenever you first could buy stock), you'd be rich now. On the other hand, if you'd bought their cameras, you'd only have some fuzzy-focused negs to show for it! Or you might have suffered the fate of some who bought in 1939-40. Apparently at the outbreak of wartime hostilities several luxury liners sailed for New York with rich Brits fleeing the war in Europe. They took with them large quantities of money against the strict restrictions on foreign exchange. The Americans had suspended dealing in Defence related stocks but Kodak escaped this impost at first. When these people arrived in New York one of the few worthwhile shares they could buy was in Kodak. However the British Government were able to confiscate the shares bought with illegally moved money after making a deal with the US Government. By this means the British taxpayer be came the single biggest shareholder in the Big Yellow Giant. I was told this story by someone who had worked for Kodak in both Harrow and Rochester. Apparently the British Government still held the shares in the mid sixties. They might still. Bob Croxford Cornwall England www.atmosphere.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: open and control
--- You wrote: Richard wrote: What was that monster Kodak 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder (220 film) that they sold during the war and possibly before? Beautifully built in the US, uncoatedoptics that were quite good, it looked like a kid's toy on steriods. Oooh, that's a toughie. The Medalist was a 620, but it looks and sounds like you describe. Right years, too--1941-1946. Could also be a Duex, also 620, 1940-1946, but cheap, probably not as heavy as you describe. If you have one and send it to me, I could get a much better fix on it--I'd pay the shipping one-way. Don't ever expect to get it back, OTOH. ;-) The Retina IIIc was in fact one of the last really good cameras Kodak made, from about 1960. German-made largely, certainly the optics with a Compur shutter. Kodak also made some reasonably good reflex cameras about then. I don't have any of them, but I know of a lake where there's one at the bottom of. :-) Best regards--LRA Of course it was the Medalist and 620 film is right. I don't know if you can even get that stuff anymore and it's no fun rewinding 120 on 620 spools. I sold mine eons ago. Sorry. But it was a very neat camera and I believe they can be had still. have you looked at ebay? The last Retina was in fact the IIIC (capital C) which had a superior viewfinder to the III small c, a meter without the flip up door and, if I'm not mistaken, lines in the finder for each of the aux lenses. I still have mine, fire damaged and lacking the removable front element. Shutter still works. I wish I could justfy buying another, but I wouldn't use it as much as my current cameras, an Olympus XA4 and a Minolta Explorer (both with 28 mm lenses.) The Retina would get lonely along with my old NIkon bodies. If I can't slip it in my pocket, it stays home. The Medalist would be a doorstop. Rich
Re: filmscanners: open and control
Brian wrote: Eastman did _not_ evade Talbot's patents, as they had expired by the time he got into the photo business. At that time British patents lasted 16 years and I believe that Talbot invented his Calotype paper negative process about 1849. 1849 sounds about right to me (possibly earlier), without looking it up on Internet Time. :-) I carefully chose the words circumvented (not evade) and other patents because I frankly don't know *what* patents might or might not have been infringed, evaded, dodged, or circumvented--but *do* know that Eastman and/or Kodak was not above doing it (see: Polaroid Land Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., c.1985). :-) In turn-of-the-century USA, there was a certain amount of lattitude in the enforcement of patents, and some of it was right out of the Wild West! (Example: Colt's constant court battles to protect his six-shooter). My old Kodak No.2 Bullet box camera (dated 1895) was designed to take both glass plates and roll film. I don't know who held the patents for roll film at the time, since several inventors were working on it (it's widely credited to Eastman), but the Model 1 Kodak (String) Camera, made by Frank Brownell for the Eastman Dry Plate and Film Co. c.June,1888, used a paper-based emulsion and was factory-loaded with a 100-picture roll that was returned to the factory for development and printing. My 1895 Bullet is clearly designed to hold a removable 101-size film roll, which was developed c. 1891-1895 (this I *did* have to look up--nb: my Britanica gives numerous dates, not *all* of which could possibly be right). George Eastman probably bought the patents for this process outright. Thomas Edison promptly used the invention to develop his kinetiscope, and the patent disputes with the Lumieres and others over *that one* are legendary, too. ;-) I think Ansco were killed by the fiasco of Anscochrome colour film. As I understand it this was brought out in the fifties. Ansco was a player in US photography for a very long time, though never as big as Kodak. Starting with a camera supply manufacture begun in 1842 by Edward Anthony, it merged with Scovill Adams in 1902 and the name shortened to Ansco in 1907. It then merged with Agfa Kamerawerke in 1928 and became Agfa-Ansco. In later years, this became GAF, which is still a power. I have a 1910 Dollar box and a plastic hotpix 110 pocket camera that I bought new in 1994. So they're still around, but seeing the name Ansco is a real rarity, anymore. Agfa film is still popular--except among some filmscanners. ;-) As for US-made cameras being killed off by Kodak, I think it is much more a case of them being wiped out first by the Germans and then the Japanese. That bit of common knowledge is probably very oversimplified. Kodak had a virtual monopoly on cameras and film for the US Armed Forces during WWII (that's not to say other cameras weren't used, because they were). During that time, I'm told, it was possible for competitors to ease into the market because Kodak was busy elsewhere. Universal Camera was one, Argus was another (both strted in the late 30's). Bell Howell had acquired a nitch in movie cameras, projectors and camera supplies. And Ansco, of course. After the war, Kodak was fat sassy, beefed up by the government contracts, and quick to go after their lost market share. Universal was the first to go--Kodak simply quit making film for their little compact movie camera! They made a stereo camera as late as 1954, but it nevery really caught on. Argus had almost ruled the roost for reasonably-priced 35mm with its C-Series bricks (Kodak did have the very good Retina, which was smaller, lighter...and German-made; and the Ektra-- these were in very short supply and cost $300 in the 1940's--the eauivalent of $3000 or more in today's economy). In the late 40's/early 50's, Kodak brought out a series of small, light, cheap 127 and 35mm cameras, and Argus lasted until about 1961 as a manufacturer. This was about when well-made Japanese cameras started appearing in the US (the Germans a little earlier--they didn't have to reverse-engineer anything). But it would be a stretch to say that's what forced Argus out, any more than that's why Kodak didn't make a good camera after the Retina. They just didn't keep up--for whatever reasons. Hubris, I'd call it, for want of a better word. As for BellHowell, their nitch was more secure than the others, and they continued to make movie cameras and the Cube slide projector into the 1980's--I have one. I can also state from experience that their service policies resembled the horror stories we've recently discussed about our scanners, and their business followed that poor service--right into the toilet. Whether they manufacture anything today, I couldn't tell you. And so, Boys and Girls, the point of my story is, Whatever Goes around, Comes around. Last winter, Kodak laid off 400 workers in Rochester (and Rochester is a *bad* place to be out of work in the
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In 382693518.991527991110.JavaMail.root@web595-ec, Lynn Allen wrote: It seems to me that George Eastman circumvented Talbot's and other patents very successfully vis-a-vis sensitized-paper and celuloid negatives--and then proceded to take over or eliminate almost every other film and camera-maker in the USA within a short span of time. This probably relates more to the variations of the nations' laws than to the hypotheses at hand, viz control vs. open, IMO. Eastman did _not_ evade Talbot's patents, as they had expired by the time he got into the photo business. At that time British patents lasted 16 years and I believe that Talbot invented his Calotype paper negative process about 1849. By Eastman's time paper negs had long been replaced by glass plates. A lot of people who talk about evading patents are confusing them with copyright, which is another thing entirely. Patents cover the basic principles of an invention but only last 16-20 years. Copyright covers the exact design of a particular product, and last virtually for ever. However when something is out of patent, you can sell something that *looks* different, even if it conforms to the same basic principles. For instance if Henry Ford had patented the motor car, then no one could have sold another motor car until his patent ran out. After that they could have sold other designs of cars, but *not* an exact copy of the Model T, as to do so would have infringed his copyright on that design. Ansco managed to hold out the longest, but is gone now except for the name. I think Ansco were killed by the fiasco of Anscochrome colour film. As I understand it this was brought out in the fifties. Photographers thought it was wonderful, as it had a much higher speed than Kodachrome, which at that time was only about 10ASA. They saw that they could no take colour slides of fast moving subjects, or in lower light conditions - great!! However it was not so great a few years later when they found all the colours were fading from their Ansco slides! Anscochrome was not chemically stable, while Kodachrome has always been famous for its stability. As for US-made cameras being killed off by Kodak, I think it is much more a case of them being wiped out first by the Germans and then the Japanese. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: open and control
--- You wrote: Argus had almost ruled the roost for reasonably-priced 35mm with its C-Series bricks (Kodak did have the very good Retina, which was smaller, lighter...and German-made; and the Ektra-- these were in very short supply and cost $300 in the 1940's--the eauivalent of $3000 or more in today's economy). --- end of quoted material --- Lynn, What was that monster Kodak 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder (220 film) that they sold during the war and possibly before? Beautifully built in the US, uncoated optics that were quite good, it looked like a kid's toy on steriods. I had one for a while. Some years ago you could pick them up quite cheaply. I think they were intended for the military. I loved my Retina IIIC but it left static tracks on Tri X film. Made beautiful chromes. I had both auxiliary lenses too. Rich
Re: filmscanners: open and control
Richard wrote: What was that monster Kodak 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder (220 film) that they sold during the war and possibly before? Beautifully built in the US, uncoatedoptics that were quite good, it looked like a kid's toy on steriods. Oooh, that's a toughie. The Medalist was a 620, but it looks and sounds like you describe. Right years, too--1941-1946. Could also be a Duex, also 620, 1940-1946, but cheap, probably not as heavy as you describe. If you have one and send it to me, I could get a much better fix on it--I'd pay the shipping one-way. Don't ever expect to get it back, OTOH. ;-) The Retina IIIc was in fact one of the last really good cameras Kodak made, from about 1960. German-made largely, certainly the optics with a Compur shutter. Kodak also made some reasonably good reflex cameras about then. I don't have any of them, but I know of a lake where there's one at the bottom of. :-) Best regards--LRA --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Starr) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 4, 2001 7:20:37 PM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: open and control --- You wrote: Argus had almost ruled the roost for reasonably-priced 35mm with its C-Series bricks (Kodak did have the very good Retina, which was smaller, lighter...and German-made; and the Ektra-- these were in very short supply and cost $300 in the 1940's--the eauivalent of $3000 or more in today's economy). --- end of quoted material --- Lynn, What was that monster Kodak 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder (220 film) that they sold during the war and possibly before? Beautifully built in the US, uncoated optics that were quite good, it looked like a kid's toy on steriods. I had one for a while. Some years ago you could pick them up quite cheaply. I think they were intended for the military. I loved my Retina IIIC but it left static tracks on Tri X film. Made beautiful chromes. I had both auxiliary lenses too. Rich --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: open and control
I just came in on this discussion on this note. Interestingly and coincidentally, I was reading Photogaphy Until Now by John Szarkowski this morning. My historical comments will of course be colored by what Szarkowski chose to tell me... Part of the popularity of Daguerre's method was the openness compared to Talbot's calotype. However, a large part was due to the product. The daguerratype astounded people. It was something new and different. The calotype was more of an extension of existing art at the time. Despite its popularity, the daguerreotype rather quickly reached the limits of its technology. The demise of the daguerreotype was due to more than it's openness. Modern photography can trace its roots to Talbot. After about 1850, both methods were superceded by the wet plate method. Wet plate ruled photography for the next 30 years. Aound 1880, wet plate was surplanted by the dry plate method, which was developed by many and popularized by Eastman. With wet plate, the photographer was required to control the entire process. Essentially, he had to create the plate, expose it and then develop it all on the spot. With dry plate, the chemistry became so difficult that the creation of the plate and often the developing was done by a third party. George Eastman made that third party ubiquitously Kodak. To paraphrase Szarkowski, after the adoption of dry plate, the methods and materials available to photographers were what Kodak and the other photographic companies decided to supply them. While the hard ball tactics of George Eastman and Kodak are legendary, they don't extend back in time to Daguerre and Fox Talbot ;). Anyway, I found it interesting... Andrew Robinson Lynn Allen wrote: Bob Croxford wrote (very interestingly): Daguerre was paid a pension by the French government to make his invention free to everyone, (except the Brits). Fox Talbot on the other hand controlled everything through his rigid patents. The result was that no one tried to circumvent the daguerreotype while lots of inventors tried, and succeeded, in circumventing Talbot's patents. The result was a huge boost to neg/pos photography while Daguerre's ideas stayed in a cul-de-sac. This is a story that I haven't read up on sufficiently, to my lasting shame. I know I *really* should stay out of this one, but you all knew I'd be drawn in, didn't you? ;-) It seems to me that George Eastman circumvented Talbot's and other patents very successfully vis-a-vis sensitized-paper and celuloid negatives--and then proceded to take over or eliminate almost every other film and camera-maker in the USA within a short span of time. This probably relates more to the variations of the nations' laws than to the hypotheses at hand, viz control vs. open, IMO.
Re: filmscanners: open and control
In a message dated 3/6/01 1:50:27 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought I read long ago that there was a patent taken out in England a short time before the French government bought the rights to the process and it was the patent that stopped the English using the process. Was it the French who took out the patent to stop the English using the process and did the patent apply in Scotland? Bob Armstrong Dear Bob All my books are packed away pending a move but I vaguely remember that one businessman persuaded Daguerre to take out a British patent. This man then set up a Daguerrotype studio in Holborn in London and made a small fortune because he had bought the sole licence. I don't know about Scotland. Studios were widespread throughout France and made a quick fortune. 400 pounds a day was achieved which was a small fortune in the mid 1800s. Some photographers are not able to charge that now! Bob Croxford Cornwall England www.atmosphere.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: open and control
B.Rumary [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: big snip Ansco managed to hold out the longest, but is gone now except for the name. I think Ansco were killed by the fiasco of Anscochrome colour film. As I understand it this was brought out in the fifties. Photographers thought it was wonderful, as it had a much higher speed than Kodachrome, which at that time was only about 10ASA. They saw that they could no take colour slides of fast moving subjects, or in lower light conditions - great!! However it was not so great a few years later when they found all the colours were fading from their Ansco slides! Anscochrome was not chemically stable, while Kodachrome has always been famous for its stability. I have some Ansco Color slides from the mid-1940s, and their color has become wonderously bizarre. However, they are of important family events and are still highly valued. We owe a big debt of gratitude to Ed Hamrick for the faded color correction capabilities in VueScan. The results on the Ansco slides is still pretty aweful, but so much better than without the corrections! --Dana
RE: filmscanners: open and control
A lot of people who talk about evading patents are confusing them with copyright, which is another thing entirely. While many people do confuse the two, one must be careful not to assume that the distinctions and uses of the two which exist in one country hold for another. I made that mistake once by assuming that because copyright, trademark, and patent have given uses and meanings in the US they had the same meanings and uses in other places like the UK. Until recently, copyrights in the US were valid for a specific limited length of time and could be renewed multiple times by the original owner or those who had be assigned the copyright; currently copyrights in the US are valid for the life of the originator even if assigned to someone else, I believe, and are renewable for a limited length of time only once. Moreover, I believe that in the UK copyrights have a broader use than in the US. In the UK, I believe you can obtain a separate copyright for the design, design idea, and design concept of a patentable invention along with the patent for the actual invention; whereas, I do not think this is the case n the US where the patenting of an invention includes protection for the design, design idea, and design concept which is not a separable transaction. Tangible designs, design concepts, and design ideas or plans as abstract entities not tied to a particular concrete invention can be copyrighted, but not patented without being tied to a concrete invention. This, however, does nothing to undermine the main points which you have made. I just thought it was proper to suggest that the concepts being used should be regarded in terms of shades of gray across international borders and not in terms of black and white. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Rumary Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: open and control In 382693518.991527991110.JavaMail.root@web595-ec, Lynn Allen wrote: It seems to me that George Eastman circumvented Talbot's and other patents very successfully vis-a-vis sensitized-paper and celuloid negatives--and then proceded to take over or eliminate almost every other film and camera-maker in the USA within a short span of time. This probably relates more to the variations of the nations' laws than to the hypotheses at hand, viz control vs. open, IMO. Eastman did _not_ evade Talbot's patents, as they had expired by the time he got into the photo business. At that time British patents lasted 16 years and I believe that Talbot invented his Calotype paper negative process about 1849. By Eastman's time paper negs had long been replaced by glass plates. A lot of people who talk about evading patents are confusing them with copyright, which is another thing entirely. Patents cover the basic principles of an invention but only last 16-20 years. Copyright covers the exact design of a particular product, and last virtually for ever. However when something is out of patent, you can sell something that *looks* different, even if it conforms to the same basic principles. For instance if Henry Ford had patented the motor car, then no one could have sold another motor car until his patent ran out. After that they could have sold other designs of cars, but *not* an exact copy of the Model T, as to do so would have infringed his copyright on that design. Ansco managed to hold out the longest, but is gone now except for the name. I think Ansco were killed by the fiasco of Anscochrome colour film. As I understand it this was brought out in the fifties. Photographers thought it was wonderful, as it had a much higher speed than Kodachrome, which at that time was only about 10ASA. They saw that they could no take colour slides of fast moving subjects, or in lower light conditions - great!! However it was not so great a few years later when they found all the colours were fading from their Ansco slides! Anscochrome was not chemically stable, while Kodachrome has always been famous for its stability. As for US-made cameras being killed off by Kodak, I think it is much more a case of them being wiped out first by the Germans and then the Japanese. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: open and control
Bob Croxford wrote: All my books are packed away pending a move but I vaguely remember that one businessman persuaded Daguerre to take out a British patent. This man then set up a Daguerrotype studio in Holborn in London and made a small fortune because he had bought the sole licence. I don't know about Scotland. Studios were widespread throughout France and made a quick fortune. 400 pounds a day was achieved which was a small fortune in the mid 1800s. Some photographers are not able to charge that now! Pah! I sneeze on your 400 pounds a day! hee, hee, hee (wiz a frensh aczent). Hope the move goes well. I would love to read further about the history of this; perhaps you would mail me with details of your relevant books when you have a spare minute. Regards Bob Armstrong
RE: filmscanners: open and control
Bob Croxford wrote (very interestingly): Daguerre was paid a pension by the French government to make his invention free to everyone, (except the Brits). Fox Talbot on the other hand controlled everything through his rigid patents. The result was that no one tried to circumvent the daguerreotype while lots of inventors tried, and succeeded, in circumventing Talbot's patents. The result was a huge boost to neg/pos photography while Daguerre's ideas stayed in a cul-de-sac. This is a story that I haven't read up on sufficiently, to my lasting shame. I know I *really* should stay out of this one, but you all knew I'd be drawn in, didn't you? ;-) It seems to me that George Eastman circumvented Talbot's and other patents very successfully vis-a-vis sensitized-paper and celuloid negatives--and then proceded to take over or eliminate almost every other film and camera-maker in the USA within a short span of time. This probably relates more to the variations of the nations' laws than to the hypotheses at hand, viz control vs. open, IMO. There's no question that Eastman-Kodak exerted every bit of control they could muster or buy, and squashed any upstart that dared rear their ugly head--Universal Cameras in the '40's, for example. Ansco managed to hold out the longest, but is gone now except for the name. Eastman and Kodak did in fact start an Industry of affordable photography for people who otherwise wouldn't have done it. They even produced some good cameras (largely under pressure from European manufacturers--since they'd eliminated their local competition, who made better and much more beautiful cameras). But they haven't produced a good camera for a long time. So, is Eastman Kodak supposed to be the ideal model for control? If you'd bought their stock in 1920 (or whenever you first could buy stock), you'd be rich now. On the other hand, if you'd bought their cameras, you'd only have some fuzzy-focused negs to show for it! I understand what Dick's saying--if you don't consider profit, you won't be around very long, any more than you'd change the world if you don't win the election. That aside, if you insist on control without wisdom and insight, you'll wind up an R.J.Reynolds Tobacco Co. with nothing but your money to comfort you as the barbarians batter down the gates. :-) Yes, having it both ways is best. Daguerre will always be remembered as the Father of Photography, although Fox Talbot beat him to it. What will Bill Gates be remembered as? The Man Who Forestalled the Future? or The Man Who Ripped-Off Everybody? Show of hands. As I said, I should have stayed out of this--but it's too damned important to dummy-up about. If we *have* a future, it should be open enough to explore and expand upon. And screw Bill--he's got enough. His prosperity is well taken care of. It's his *posterity* he needs to be concerned about. ;-) Best regards--LRA --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 2, 2001 8:15:21 PM GMT Subject: filmscanners: open and control In a message dated 2/6/01 4:05:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Open advocates seem to favor freedom (in a product/market sense), and strongly believe that growth and innovation is greater this way than with the Control people's way. They also seem to be less aware of, or concerned with profits, and are more willing to invest their energies based on passion rather than some assurances of payoff. Standards are an anathema. Dear Dick In the earliest days of photography these two ideas fought it out. Daguerre was paid a pension by the French government to make his invention free to everyone, (except the Brits). Fox Talbot on the other hand controlled everything through his rigid patents. The result was that no one tried to circumvent the daguerreotype while lots of inventors tried, and succeeded, in circumventing Talbot's patents. The result was a huge boost to neg/pos photography while Daguerre's ideas stayed in a cul-de-sac. The history of photography seems to be against your hypothesis. Sticking with photography it was Agfa who gave us colour film we could process ourselves while Kodak believed emphatically in the idea of a hugely expensive factory owned Kodachrome line. Which idea is winning now? Kodak also launched the PhotoCD and hasn't yet learnt the value of the home scanner market. Another moral is what happened to Radstock Repro who spent 1.5 million pounds on a closed architecture digital scanner and film output system a few years ago. They promptly went bust when someone had the bright idea of plugging a Mac into existing scanners and invented Photoshop and Quark. 85,000 pounds bought a better, more flexible system which unbelievably did typesetting AS WELL! Yours Bob Croxford Cornwall England www.atmosphere.co.uk --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
