Re: [Rollei] Negatives of one's ancestors

[Nick Roberts <nickbroberts]

My first MF camera was (still is!) an Autographic
Kodak, stylus long lost but with a fair lens and
decent control it was capable of decent enough results
on 120 Verichrome Pan. Not a terrible camera at all.

Nick

- --- Richard Knoppow <dickburk  > wrote: > 
> 
>    The camera that allowed writing on the film was
> the Kodak
> Autographic. Several models of these were made.
> Autographic
> film was special, it had a paper backing made so
> that when
> written on with a sharp stylus (supplied with the
> camera) it
> would tear away the opaque backing allowing the
> writing to
> be exposed onto the film underneath. The film was
> not made
> for very long, without looking it up I think less
> than ten
> years, but the size was standard, at least for
> Kodak, so the
> cameras stayed in service even after the Autographic
> feature
> became unusable.
>     Before photofinishers had automatic enlargers
> cameras
> tended to be of rather large format because the only
> economical prints were contact prints. This was
> pretty much
> the rule until after WW-2. Kodak even made a roll
> film which
> took 4x5 inch images!
>     There is a history booklet on Kodak cameras
> hidden
> somewhere on the Kodak web site and Thom Bell of
> Kodak has a
> list of discontinued roll film sizes on his personal
> web
> site.
>     As far as processing is concerned, the most
> important
> thing seems to be whether the negatives were
> completely
> fixed or not. Photofinishers sometimes continued to
> use
> fixer until it wouldn't clear any more, long past
> its
> capacity to fix archivally. The number of very old
> negatives
> and prints which have survived in perfect condition
> despite
> lack of special storage conditions suggests that
> many
> photofinishers did a pretty good job. Since it is
> now known
> that a very small residual of fixer in the emulsion
> helps to
> preserve the image its likely that adequate, but not
> heroic,
> washing may have resulted in longer, not shorter,
> life for
> the negatives and especially fro the prints.
>    I will also comment that many old negatives are
> very
> dense. This is due to the common practice of
> photofinishers
> of overdeveloping somewhat to insure recovering an
> image in
> case of under exposure, and the typical condition
> of,
> especially box cameras, of overexposing in bright
> light
> conditions. Since film has always had a relatively
> large
> overexposure latitude and little underexposure
> latitude,
> this is a reasonable compromise where it is desired
> to get
> an image, even if not of the best quality, despite
> poor
> exposure conditions.
>     I wonder how many current digital images will be
> around
> in eightly years.
> 
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk  
> 
>  


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

------------------------------