Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,909   Posts: 1,521,566   Online: 792
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: Why 'chrome' ??

  1. #31
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,189
    Images
    148
    Well put

    We said trannies in the UK but then those US trannies might object

    What dress are you wearing today John . . . . .

    Ian

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    By 1914 Mees had already head of Kodak Research for 2 years and had his sidekick from school, University and Wratten Shepperd was working alongside him.

    Mees was the high-flying chemist, and throw what ever dates - he's the link there with Verichrome, Kodak & Chrome
    I know. (I also know that "Shepperd" was called Sheppard, and wasn't working at Wratten's ).
    But that was not the point i brought up. Which was that Eastman wasn't dead when Kodachrome was first launched.

    The contention that Mees was the man who put the word "chrome" in the photo world's vocabulary is absolutely unsustainable.

    Did he bring it to E.K.?
    Why, for instance, not Ducos du Hauron and his photochromoskop or polychromes, either because George Eastman (or his detective Clarke) knew about him, or through Powrie and Warner who suggested to George Eastman that they had perfected Ducos du Hauron's method (claiming to have improved upon James McDonough, who said he improved upon John Joly, who in turn said he made Ducos du Hauron's idea 'producable')? Why not EK employee Fifield, who really perfected the method? (Many names: just one, single (!) line along which the term could have been suggested to GE)

    Why not the Lumière brothers you have mentioned already?

    And (and this is the nail in the coffin) how can we ignore that "chrome" already was alive and kicking in the photo world when all that happened?

    So unless you present proof (good luck! ), not even plausible.

  3. #33
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,189
    Images
    148
    yawn

  4. #34
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,259
    Images
    5
    Well, I want to know why we call them "cameras"! I mean, yes, there was the camera-obscura. But really, the word camera means "room" and not plastic/metal/wooden box.

    Discuss ... :rolleyes:
    David
    Taking pictures is easy. Making photographs is hard.

    http://www.behance.net/silverdarkroom
    http://silverdarkroom.wordpress.com

  5. #35
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    yawn
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  6. #36
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,189
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brown View Post
    Well, I want to know why we call them "cameras"! I mean, yes, there was the camera-obscura. But really, the word camera means "room" and not plastic/metal/wooden box.

    Discuss ... :rolleyes:
    It's the way a camera obscura puts an image on a a wall, or screen - bit of ground glass,

    Ever so simple

    Ian

  7. #37
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,331
    There are two different things being discussed here:

    -) why is slide film typically designated with the suffix `-chrome´?
    I assume consensus is that Kodak with their mass production slide films paved the way and that as Ian depicted other manufacturers of such films over the decennias joined.

    -) how did `-chrome´ aside from slide film designation enter the photographic world?
    This, as Q.G. pointed out, is a wide field...

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    It's the way a camera obscura puts an image on a a wall, or screen - bit of ground glass,

    Ever so simple
    Yet again not the answer.

    My cameras aren't rooms either. Can't put a sofa in them. Not even a comfy chair.

  9. #39
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,189
    Images
    148
    Another yawn QC.

    ian

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    There are two different things being discussed here:

    [...]-) how did `-chrome´ aside from slide film designation enter the photographic world?
    This, as Q.G. pointed out, is a wide field...
    I think it has been answered a long time ago already, by pointing out that it is Greek for colour. Many terms used in photography (as is that word itself) are derived from Greek.

    So only one thing to be discussed: the Original Question.
    (That too has been answered pretty early on in this thread).

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin