[rollei_list] Re: Do You?
- From: Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:17:49 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Brick <jim@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Mar 15, 2008 11:05 PM
>To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Do You?
>
>Clear were for B&W film, blue for color film (simulated the high
>Kelvin of daylight). Actually, clear was the norm as B&W was where it
>was. There was a lot less blue types to choose from. I still have some
>of both. And I did lick them!
>
>Jim
>
>
>On Mar 15, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Peter J Nebergall wrote:
>
>> Right. CLEAR bulbs were rather rare, tho I remember my instructor
>> telling me how they gave a stop or so more light....
>
>---
>Rollei List
>
Curiously enough there were also amber bulbs. The blue ones were to match
daylight color film, about 5500K but clear bulbs were too blue for tungsten
color, maybe 4500K, so there were also amber lamps for film balanced for 3200K
or maybe it was 3400K.
Press photographers commonly used clear bulbs and orthochromatic film. The
ortho tended to reproduce skin texture and some other details better than pan
film with the flat lighting from flash-on-the-camera and the high level of red
output from the bulbs. Except for cheesecake newspapers wanted _details_ not
flattering pictures because the printing was not very good to begin with.
I suppose if you licked enough flashbulb bases you could get lead
poisoning from the solder.
--
Richard Knoppow
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Los Angeles, CA, USA
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
