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 soli
: 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
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
re 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
nal 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?
>
>
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
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
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
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-
In a message dated 3/6/01 10:39:50 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Brian
<>
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
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
--- 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 ta
cs 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-
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 7
: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
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
wit
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 ext
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 yo
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, su
--- 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
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
ake 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&
--- 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 i
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
> ca
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)
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.
essage-
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
B.Rumary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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,
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
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
> ca
Bob Coxford wrote:
> Daguerre was paid a pension by the French government to make his invention free to
> everyone, (except the Brits).
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
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Croxford wrote:
> 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
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 openn
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 daguerreotyp
34 matches
Mail list logo
