PE, the discussion point is about the hand-cranked hopper / coater as visible in the beginning of the video, which depicts the situation around 1900.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Would "wick" be a correct term for the reddish flexible strip sticking out of the underside of the visible through in that fragment? Or would "brush" be a better term?:
3,09 3,12 Around 1900 Lieven Gevaert built a half automated hopper (coating machine)
3,13 3,16 Production commenced under yellow light
3,17 3,19 A piece of paper was tightened in a frame
3,19 3,22 and was hand cranked
3,23 3,25 The light sensitive emulsion flowed from a bottle into a through
3,26 3,29 to which a wide brush was attached, spreading the emulsion over the paper
I cannot tell from the image. I even ran it in the larger size but it was worse.
I can say that depending on the construction of that strip it could be either a wick or a blade. One works during application (wick) and they both can work after application (wick or blade) and the wick can apply or resurface the coating. The blade can only resurface the coating. This is what my coating blades do, and what was done by Kodak in the 40s and earlier.
Once more, then i'll (probably) shut up about this:
Originally Posted by Marco B
You should translate the narrative. Not try to change the story into something you think people will want to hear, or something you think they will understand better.
If Gevaert used a wick, people versed in the field of pouring emulsions may (or may not) scratch their heads, and think it odd (and it doesn't matter what they find odd: the use of the word or the use of a wick).
But they need to hear what (in this case) the film's narrative says. Nothing else.
Again, if "manufacturers DID agree on the general terms for these kind of devices, it would be rather stupid" if you 'corrected' the thing Gevaert used (according to this account of what Gevaert used) to something else he didn't, just because you want to use the "general term".
You are then bending the narrative to mean, not what Gevart reportedly did, but to what other manufactures "generally" do.
That's not translating. That's revising.
The narrative says they used a wick (clearly audible: "wiek"), you're co-translator told you that they (said that they) used a wick.
So ... still want to revise? Or translate?
The instances i was alluding to - of translators goofing because they don't understand what they are translating - invariably would have not gone wrong if they just had translated what was said.
But they, not understanding, try to make sense of it, turning out nonsense instead.
If they only would have enough confidence in the people whose words they are translating, and not instead try to make something else of it, something that they understand, we would have much better subtitles. ;))
It depends on the purpose of the translation. If it merely is to convert words from one language to another, you are right, but I personally do indeed think that in this case people are probably better served with a term they can immediately understand, and thus get some insight into the working of all these wonderfully complex but unknown devices, than get confused.
Originally Posted by Q.G.
I am fully aware that that is a subjective approach...
You are now blindly assuming the narration of the film is correct. It was 1954, over 50 years after these devices were used... Maybe even at Gevaert itself, they were unsure what to call this device... I do agree it is likely they used "wick", but what I actually attempt to say or ask is "is there anyone who has some historic literature to confirm the (somewhat unfamiliar but probably correct) usage of the word "wiek / wick" here..."
Originally Posted by Q.G.
That is is not the same as me wanting to use the "general term"...
I "want" "scientific proof" (well, horrible term here :o)
I want neither, I just want confirmation of the term as used at Gevaert ;)
Originally Posted by Q.G.
The "last witness" died 1945.
What did not deter Gevaert people to use the term "wick" later.
Terminology in the film manufacturing business is very company specific. I found that out trying to make sense out of German and Japanese comments which used different words (in translation) than we did. The equipment was also company specific!
The windmill blade example posted here earlier was quite compelling to me inferring that they meant blade, but I cannot be sure. I do know that a wick tends to leave streaks in the coating whereas a blade does not. So, at the current time, I favor the translation "wieken" blades from the windmill example just based on my own coating experience and on some old textbooks from that era.
OK, based also on PE's and AgX's comments and usage of "wick", here a last attempt including an updated attached text document.
So here was my last version of the translation:
3,23 3,25 De lichtgevoelige emulsie liep uit een fles in een bakje // The light sensitive emulsion flowed from a bottle into a through
3,26 3,29 Waaruit een 'wiek' stak die de emulsie over het papier streek // to which a wide brush was attached, spreading the emulsion over the paper
Now Q.G. suggested:
3,23 3,25 De lichtgevoelige emulsie liep uit een fles in een bakje // The light sensitive emulsion ran out of a bottle into a little tray
3,26 3,29 Waaruit een 'wiek' stak die de emulsie over het papier streek // out of which a wick protruded that spread the fluid over the paper
I noticed three small points or issues:
- Q.G. correctly replaced the "emulsion", with "fluid" in the 2nd sentence. In the Dutch transcription that I first made, I had intended to literally write down each spoken word as said. But I unintendedly replaced "fluid / vloeistof" with "emulsion / emulsie" in the 2nd sentence while typing it.
- "out of which a wick protruded"
The word protruded already includes the meaning "out of", so "from which a wick protruded" might be better?
- Q.G. replaced my "through" correctly with "little tray" (maybe better "small tray"?)
"Final" translation than:
3,23 3,25 De lichtgevoelige emulsie liep uit een fles in een bakje // The light sensitive emulsion ran out of a bottle into a small tray
3,26 3,29 Waaruit een 'wiek' stak die de emulsie over het papier streek // from which a wick protruded that spread the fluid over the paper
It had been stated be Gevaert people that the "wiek" transferred the emulsion to the paper. Well, this still would not exclude the meaning of `blade´...
But I never came across that term in this meaning. Yes, a windmill wing is called "wiek", and it is straight today, though twisted. But this designation rather originates from its aerodynamic behaviour like a wing, which is the original meaning of "wiek". I assume the meaning as wick has evolved due to the feather's shaft capillarity..
The main difference between a through and a tray is the relative height of its sides.
Yezzzz. Can't believe I just spent 3 hours on two sentences! ;):D