World's largest camera

> Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
> in the story.

Maybe they're going to make a contact print. =)

steve

Pat wrote:
> ... to be followed by the world largest enlarger ....?
>
> Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
> in the story.

Maybe they're pessimists?

"Matt Ion" <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in message
news:wbgkg.34345$Mn5.28809@pd7tw3no...
> Pat wrote:
>> ... to be followed by the world largest enlarger ....?
>>
>> Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
>> in the story.
>
> Maybe they're pessimists?

after buying the cemicals they cant afford the paper ??

In article <4fdf2gF1i4h4dU1@>, Steve Wolfe <anx@codon.com> wrote:
>> Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
>> in the story.
>
> Maybe they're going to make a contact print. =)

That brings up an interesting question -- is the resolution of
printing paper as high as the resolution of film? IIRC, a good
negative can resolve about 1000 lpi. If I used an 8 x 10 view camera
and made a contact print from that, would I get 1000 lpi in my print?

Steve Wolfe wrote:
[Pat had written:]
>> Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
>> in the story.
>
> Maybe they're going to make a contact print. =)

Well, not exactly, but the word negative was in quotes, as in:


"The photographers are using a nearly 31-by-111-foot piece of white
fabric covered in 20 gallons of light-sensitive emulsion as the "negative."

After exposing the fabric for up to 10 days, they will develop it in a
huge tub made of pool siding, using 200 gallons of black-and-white
developer solution and 600 gallons of fixer."

This after exposing for "up to" ? 10 days more or less. All calculations
done on a Bowmar Brain.....

Is the uncertainty to do with how much sunshine there is in the period?

Neat cite. Thanks.

--
john mcwilliams

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:21:23 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@> wrote:
> Steve Wolfe wrote:
> [Pat had written:]
>>> Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
>>> in the story.
>>
>> Maybe they're going to make a contact print. =)
>
> Well, not exactly, but the word negative was in quotes, as in:
>
>
> "The photographers are using a nearly 31-by-111-foot piece of white
> fabric covered in 20 gallons of light-sensitive emulsion as the "negative."
>
> After exposing the fabric for up to 10 days, they will develop it in a
> huge tub made of pool siding, using 200 gallons of black-and-white
> developer solution and 600 gallons of fixer."
>
> This after exposing for "up to" ? 10 days more or less. All calculations
> done on a Bowmar Brain.....
>
> Is the uncertainty to do with how much sunshine there is in the period?

That would be my guess. I doubt anyone makes a light meter that can tie
into the National Weather Service forecast database. I assume that
they'll have some test strips down near the bottom, and when the
estimated exposure time comes near, take down a strip and develop it
and see how it looks. Sort of like the photographic equivalent of a
pop-up meat thermometer.

It seemed like a really long exposure, but then I thought about just how
much light there would be per unit area of emulsion.

> Neat cite. Thanks.

My pleasure.

-dms

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:53:10 GMT, aussie bongo wrote:

>>> Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
>>> in the story.
>>
>> Maybe they're pessimists?
>
> after buying the cemicals they cant afford the paper ??

<Whoosh>

Nope. Optimists aren't known for embracing negatives. :)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:53:10 GMT, aussie bongo wrote:
>
>
>>>>Why, pray tell, are they making a negative? That's got to be an error
>>>>in the story.
>>>
>>>Maybe they're pessimists?
>>
>>after buying the cemicals they cant afford the paper ??
>
>
> <Whoosh>
>
> Nope. Optimists aren't known for embracing negatives. :)

Thank you - I hoped SOMEone would get it :)