[rollei_list] Re: Press Cameras
- From: Newhouse230@xxxxxxx
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:50:50 -0400 (EDT)
Richard,
You may well be right on both counts. Now that you mention it, it
certainly was more than just water needed to 'fix' the negative.
As for there being a difference in exposure between what was required for
the instant print, and what was needed to get a good negative.........I
just can't remember. It's been almost 50 years now, and there are a lot of
little details that are starting to fade!
Charlie
In a message dated 3/24/2012 9:38:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
----- Original Message -----
From: <Newhouse230@xxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 6:22 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Press Cameras
>I had two experiences with 4x5 'press cameras'
> . The first was in the 1950's I worked a summer or two at
> a camera store
> in Brookline, MA. They had a contract with the Post
> Office to develop and
> print 4x5 negatives sent to them each week. The subject';
> Post Office trucks
> that had been in traffic accidents. Each week we got a
> packet with 4 x 5
> film still in their holders. We developed them and made an
> 8"x10" of each
> one and returned everything to the local Post Office. The
> quality of the
> shots was usually terrible. Large negatives don't
> guarantee quality if the
> photographer can't manage to focus well. The relatively
> shallow DOF seemed to
> be a problem for the photographers as rarely were all the
> important areas of
> vehicle damage in focus.
>
> The second experience was in college. I worked two
> summers at
> Polaroid's home office in Cambridge, MA. I was a quality
> control test
> photographer. We subjected the Polaroid films to extreme
> heat and cold and made note
> of the color shifts etc. One of the films we enjoyed
> working with on our
> own time was the 4 x 5 black and white film that yielded
> an instant
> positive print as well as producing a negative. The
> negative required a water
> wash if I recall, but could then be printed in the
> conventional fashion.
> It was 'that' film which made me crave a 4 x 5 camera.
> They detail was
> excellent and we had 16 x 20 prints from that film to
> prove it. There were
> also some 'mural size' prints made from them which held
> up to the
> enlargement fairly well.
> That 'positive-negative' film, among others, was
> given to various
> famous photographers who had relationships with Polaroid
> and agreed to create
> photographs using the instant film. Ansel Adams was one of
> those
> photographers. Marie Cosindas was another. She had an
> amazing eye for color and
> somehow created a palette that few others could, even
> using the same films.
> Using the Speed Graphics in the test studio and
> getting instant
> results was a great experience. I was using a
> Rolleicord VB at the time, and
> the larger 4 x 5 format of the 'press camera' was another
> 'step up' in
> image quality from the 35mm format that had taken hold,
> almost completely in
> the 60's.
>
> Charlie Silverman
I think what the negative needed was a sulfite bath and
wash. My memory is that the correct exposure for a good
negative was different from the one for a good instant
print. The film was evidently akin to Panatomic-X and was
made by Kodak. That sort of film in 4x5 can be printed to
the size of a barn door.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
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:
