Dustin McAmera

Oops: I see JDMvW posted a link to this already in another forum:

In the Guardian yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/mar/03/in-living-colour-forgotten-photographs-werner-bischof It seems Werner Bischof took a Devin Tricolor camera along with him on some of his working trips. This makes three colour-filtered black-and-white plates of each exposure, which you can then reassemble into a colour print, or make plates for press use. So it has three plate-holders arranged around two part-silvered mirrors. From the Guardian piece, ''The bulky contraption was lent to him by the Zurich publisher Conzett & Huber, an international leader in the field of colour gravure, which used the illustrated magazine Du as its calling card. Bischof was assigned to furnish the magazine with colour images". At Camera-wiki: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Devin_Tricolor_Camera The camera exists as a 6.5x9 cm model, or 5x7 inch. I guess we're safe assuming it's the smaller one he used!

... and do I see you flogging that horse in colour? Aha! See? See?

Sunday spammers: give them plenty of room..

I see images at your profile: https://www.photo.net/profile/522098-sngreen/?tab=node_gallery_galleryImages Moderators: this shouldn't bein No Words; can it be moved to Help?

Not quite, but it has a bad case of worms.🪱🪱😳

They post these phone numbers in as many places as they can, as fast as they can, to maximise how many times the number appears on the web, and outrun the anti-spam measures that remove them. If anyone's ever fooled into phoning one of the numbers, they're probably speaking to some convincing guy who talks them into divulging bank details or a credit card number 'to check your booking', and then they steal a load of money. It's not that likely to work, but they only need it to work a few times to be in profit. And the web space costs nothing because they're stealing it from forums for old coots who like cameras. Some of them (the ones who post gallery pictures of wedding saris and custom trailers) are, I guess, acting for fools with businesses, who have paid for some cheapskate 'web marketing' deal, probably not knowing that what they're getting is spam they could do better themselves for nothing. They really are fools; this cheap stuff does nothing but harm to their reputation. We are one victim, because our forum is spoiled, but the business is another if they pay for this.

Ever so slightly creepy?

It's only the Fomapan 100R which is for reversal process. There is also a Fomapan 100 (no R) which is a general-purpose negative film. I've used that (and the 400). They're ok. With sheet film, I have a grudge against them because they don't have interleaves between the sheets, and I waste some sheets when they stick to my fingers. I am more used to Ilford films, and haven't used enough of the Foma to get past the disadvantages of something new, I guess. Ilford has a reversal process how-to document and it says their Pan F works well. There is also Adox Scala film and chemicals. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/REVERSAL-180619.pdf

Silicium is correct in French (Humphrey Davy named it silicium; it was renamed in English when it was judged not to be a metal); Silizium in German, silicio in Spanish.

Did you read my second post? I said The factors affecting whether a use is Fair Use include 'the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole'. In the case you cited, the guy is using such small pieces he can claim that his use of each original work is minimal; he uses the pieces as generic cartoon elements, not quotations from a particular work (though you could spend hours doing a Where's-Wally search of his collages for bits you knew). I'm sure he's safe. He might not be, if all his elements were from Disney. But if the original image that started this thread were based not on a 19th century cameo, but a magazine photo of Madonna, then the photographer who took that picture would definitely have a claim. As I mentioned earlier, when someone worked out that the Obama 'Hope' poster was based on a particular photo, the Associate Press went after the artist on behalf of their photographer, and he had to settle

With my phone.

That's simply not true, or why would businesses and governments be spending so much gathering it? It is important that the integrity of the evidence is protected and can be shown. In retail here, a lot of customer-facing staff are now required to wear small cameras that upload video or stills to a handling centre. So the shop staff never handle the evidence; there are few controls on the camera; just trigger buttons to start it; and the data can't be got out locally. The people at the handling centre know the thresholds for various offences having been committed, and they can send the police, sometimes before the incident is even over. In other situations, the photographer's statement may be the guarantee that the evidence is straight, as I said in my earlier post. This is from the UK Health and Safety Executive: 1. A photograph or sketch may be admitted in evidence provided a witness (not necessarily, but preferably, the photographer/maker) gives evidence of its accuracy. Photographs should each be identified individually in a statement to which they are exhibited, unless an album is produced as one exhibit, when an index should describe them. The statement should say when and where the photographs were taken and that they show what the inspector saw. 2. Both film and digital images may be used as evidence. For guidance on ensuring the evidential integrity of digital images, see Evidence that may assist your investigation in the Investigation section and Evidential use of photographs on the intranet. https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/physical-photos.htm That link 'Evidence that may assist your investigation' goes to another numbered list including this: 21. Where it is intended to use digital imagery as evidence, staff should follow the guidance on the HSE kit pages of the intranet. This will ensure that the evidential integrity of the images is maintained and can be demonstrated to the court.

It might be due to foam restricting access of the developer to the film along the edge nearer to the surface in the tank. You could try using a slightly larger volume of solution.

The factors affecting whether a use is Fair Use include 'the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole'. In the case you cited, the guy is using such small pieces he can claim that his use of each original work is minimal; he uses the pieces as generic cartoon elements, not quotations from a particular work (though you could spend hours doing a Where's-Wally search of his collages for bits you knew). I'm sure he's safe. He might not be, if all his elements were from Disney. But if the original image that started this thread were based not on a 19th century cameo, but a magazine photo of Madonna, then the photographer who took that picture would definitely have a claim. As I mentioned earlier, when someone worked out that the Obama 'Hope' poster was based on a particular photo, the Associate Press went after the artist on behalf of their photographer, and he had to settle.

That it goes on doesn't make it right.

If those original works are in copyright, then yes I think they do, unless the collage-maker can argue fair use. If he/she is selling his collage, that will weigh against such an argument.

I would make noise about this in one or more of the groups at Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?text=pinhole I'm in the group 'Pinhole', which is pretty quiet. I have done WWPPD a few times but not for some years now. I first heard about WWPPD via Flickr, and most of my feedback from the Day came there too. You only get to upload one picture at the WWPPD site, whereas at Flickr the more the better, size is unrestricted, and you can comment.

Does this help? https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/43455-kodak-rar-2496-and-2498-film-which-iso-should-i-aim/

It's a new one to me! The lens serial number seems to be 1922-23 (http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_serial_numbers ); I don't find anything like it in sources I have to hand. Does the finder just give viewfinding, or focus as well?

I'm not sure the new owners care one way or the other. I've said before, I don't think they had any intention of buying photo.net. They bought Creative Live, and got photo.net as an unexpected extra. It's not a significant asset. CreativeLive makes money; photo.net just costs money. They aren't charging anyone for using the site; they aren't hosting advertising, except for the plugs for CreativeLive courses on some of the forum pages; so they get no direct income from keeping photo.net running. So they already own it at a small loss; it's hardly surprising they aren't keen to spend more money on the site. Yet they are spending some money; they must be paying hosting costs, and they are allowing a few of their staff to do a little tech/top-level admin work. Everything we now have (free of charge) here is from their goodwill to what used to be a great community. Thinking aloud, it's conceivable that a group of active members could try to purchase the site. The site would become a medium-sized club. That would give the membership (or part of it) the power over things: whether to host adverts; what anti-spam measures to use; what membership should cost; etc. You'd need someone on board who could do the tech stuff; at least one of those. And people who can run the budget of something like that, with a few hundred members. Someone would need to find out the tax implications for the people doing such a takeover. If I were doing this (I wouldn't be, not in a million years, but if.. ) I'd restart paid memberships, and change the free membership to a read-only status: anyone can read the conversations but only paid-up members can post. I think that would stop spam in its tracks, but at the cost of running a payment system, which would have it's own hazards.

So they had a training day over the weekend? Or was it St Spammer's day?

That ship sailed! 😜