Literature on Emulsion Making

[falotico]

Having studied Patent Law in law school I would like to clarify a few things relevant to this post, if I can. First, a copyright protects artistic expression only, not any technical process or invention. So if I write, copyright and publish a poem describing a new process of manufacturing hydrogen peroxide, anyone can use my process to make H2O2 using my invention and I can't stop them. However, (second), if I PATENT this process I can prevent anyone from using my invention for 20 years. (Copyrights typically last 95 years).

This is the bargain you make when you get a patent: you tell the world exactly how your invention works and then the government gives you exclusive rights to use that invention for 20 years. If you do not reveal how the invention works then the patent is invalid. Samuel Morse sued Alexander Graham Bell claiming that Morse's patent for the telegraph encompassed every form of communication using electricity and a wire. Morse claimed the Bell's patent for the telephone infringed the patent for the telegraph. But Morse did NOT reveal how to make a telephone in his telegraph patent, so Morse did not have a claim against Bell. Morse lost.

In the US we had a rule which Germany and some other countries did not have. The US rule required you to reveal the best FORM of the invention. So if I invent a new photographic paper and reveal that it works with iron oxalate developers--but do not reveal that it works with Metol, PPD, etc.--then I probably will not be protected against people who make my paper for use with organic developers. However this rule is hard to enforce because when you have just invented a new process or machine it is hard to know the best form of the invention. The Wright brothers thought wing-warping was the best way to bank an airplane, so they did not patent the aileron for use in banking an aircraft. Kodak might have been working in good faith when it disclosed some things and not others. It is up to the person challenging the patent to prove otherwise.

 

[Photo Engineer]

In all fairness to Kodak, no one (AFAIK) ever challenged a photographic patent and won. We were instructed to be clear writing it, but to use the words "one skilled in the art" when it came to non essential but non-disclosable trade secrets. I think I have that right.

In any event, for more clarity, a written formula that is copyright cannot be copied and disseminated by other than the owner. Thus, you cannot copy a DVD of a copyright film made by Disney.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

What's left out of a Patent can be just as important as what's included. I know from personal experience, everyone assumed a step not included took place, missing out that step was actually the key element, and was why I could patent the process. I had a so called Kodak salesman visit to see what I was doing when I made emulsions in the 70's/80's, he was such a nice transparent guy rather to old to be working though , he was a retired (ex Harrow) emulsion chemist sent to check me out. He left on good terms none the wiser

Ian

 

[Chris Livsey]

In any event, for more clarity, a written formula that is copyright cannot be copied and disseminated by other than the owner. Thus, you cannot copy a DVD of a copyright film made by Disney.

PE

I'm no lawyer but there is, for completeness, Fair Use:

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.

- See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/#sthash.5DDBQgyQ.dpuf

If one was to reproduce the formula for the purposes of criticism that may be allowable but as the link makes clear there are no rules it is case by case, and certainly a clip from that Disney film could be used for parody, although I think most of their films already are.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, of course Chris. You are even entitled to (but prevented from) making a backup copy of something that is copyrighted.

But then, just copying and republishing can't be considered fair use.

PE

 

[removed account4]

John, how absurd.
PE

not sure how my question would be considered absurd.

Given the above example, neither one of us should be "forced" or even asked to reveal what we know beyond what we are willing to tell the public in open discussions, or in my case in workshops. Our "copyright" if you will, should not be breached. I would never think of trying to get Ian to divulge a formula, and he has never asked me to do it.

you implied it was your prerogative not to reveal things in open discussions / workshops.
and i just asked about it.

 

[falotico]

Please, I hope nobody relies on what is posted here as an operative legal opinion. Go consult a lawyer regarding the copyright and patent rules. I think people might use the term "copyright" for a more abstruse legal concept, perhaps a COA for unjust enrichment. You are always free to read the statute and case law yourself and try to pound legal principles into your brain. But do NOT rely on any legal opinion other than that given by a member of the bar who has been retained to give you that legal opinion.

 

[Chris Livsey]

But do NOT rely on any legal opinion other than that given by a member of the bar who has been retained to give you that legal opinion.

Surely you cannot rely on even that learned opinion until the the case in question has been put before the court?

 

[falotico]

Every issue that has been raised in this thread has been well-litigated and pretty much settled as a matter of law. I have not seen any case of first impression. So, yes, you can rely on a legal opinion given to you by a member of the bar, "one well skilled in the art" of patent law.

 

[jsmithphoto1]

it seems this bucket of worms has brought in some good fish!

 

[Photo Engineer]

not sure how my question would be considered absurd.

you implied it was your prerogative not to reveal things in open discussions / workshops.
and i just asked about it.

I complain about errors and omissions in formulas, but I will not omit anything from one of the formulas that I publish. I am merely stating that it is my prerogative to publish what I wish. You can be assured that when (if) I publish a formula it will be complete and do able. I will also mark those that are do able but that I have not personally made so that you, the reader, will know where I have been and what I have done in this work.

My writing can and will have errors just like that of any human being. If so, I will correct the error as far as I can, and make sure that everyone interested knows of it.

I Copyright things only to the extent that I prevent others from publishing my work before I recover the extensive costs involved in development such as more than 1 Kg of AgNO3 and more than 20 coating blades. This is an exorbitant expense on a retirees pension and SS. I have an understanding wife.

I hope that no one else interpreted my comments as you did.

PE

 

[kb3lms]

....I am wrestling with 7 Kodak patents on color negative film, trying to reconcile what they say with what I know! And I observed the same when I was working on and with patents.

These would be hard to replicate by any means. Many patents simply state "by means obvious to one skilled in the art"!

PE

And then you also have all of your input "translated" by patent attorneys and you eventually give up and go with what they say in order to get it done. One of my own patents (filed at and assigned to Kodak, BTW) is technically correct, but you would have a hell of a time building a circuit and software to replicate it - skilled in the art or not. The attorney I was working with barely understood what we were describing. My boss finally decided that the patent application captured the important claims and asked me to move on because the situation had become hopeless!

How many other patents and published descriptions end up being filed like that?

-- Jason

 

[kb3lms]

If you try to make "my" cookies you fail!

Obviously.

Never use margarine to make cookies.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Don't use duck eggs either!

PE

 

[kb3lms]

The P30 formula in the pictured Ferrania notebook is probably a good example of what this thread is about. There are lots of "codes" contained in the process such as "@ 42C + Sol 1 cc 5" and the next line "@ 43C ~ Sol 25 cc 20". And also the big mystery: what is "100% K-S" on the first page?

Solutions 1 and 25 were probably stock solutions they used for various products. Maybe if we could go through the LRF building we could find what it meant. I'll bet sure as anything that nobody of the few guys working there today are going to tell us.

I've made my own version of that formula (a few times) and it works very nicely. But then again, thanks to PE and Denise and others plus my own reading, I knew just enough to know that there were things I didn't know. So I did lots of reading and research and made semi-educated guesses. I doubt my version is the same as real P30 just like if you used turtle eggs instead of duck eggs.

And there is still probably stuff that only Guido in the emulsion room knew that was never, ever written down in that notebook.

 

[falotico]

I'm very grateful that we can rely on Mowrey's "Photographic Emulsion Making, Coating and Testing" as an accurate guide to the process. Apparently almost every other source has to be second-guessed.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I've been passing the hours this afternoon, while waiting for our granddaughter to visit, reading Wall and both laughing and crying. The laughing part is his trying to work within the constraints of the day to decipher the work of Sheppard and others on gelatin and sensitivity, and crying because he does not define his terms or times, and so we have "add a few ccs of solution A and wait a minute..." or "Use hard gel in A and soft gel in B".

What are hard and soft? Bloom or sulfur content??? Which???

Oh well, the mystery read goes on and on.

She just arrived. Time to go.

PE

 

[MattKing]

I will not omit anything from one of the formulas that I publish.

Even the "u" in "colour"?

 

[Photo Engineer]

If I were in a Commonwealth nation and a citizen thereof, then I would use it.

Besides, I save a lot of the letter "u" that way. Much less typing.

PE

 

[fdonadio]

Besides, I save a lot of the letter "u" that way. Much less typing.

I would say that's really good for "u".


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[Photo Engineer]

I hope that by now, you have seen that my examples are true and accurate.

PE

 

[removed account4]

I hope that by now, you have seen that my examples are true and accurate.

PE

PE
i never said you posted false and inaccurate things ..
i asked what the deal was because in this thread
it has been revealed once again that sometimes things are left out
and held back and "experience" is needed to know proceedure
and in a previous statement you made it a point to say you didn't have to
reveal things .. ( just like the people you are complaining about ! )
i asked for clarification because it seemed completely
out of character ... like an about-face from what you have been doing.
sorry you took what i sad the wrong way.

thanks for pointing out that will not be the case because many people
count on your experience and knowledge, coating blades, books, workshops
lunch dates, conversations, prodding along, and help
for when they too decide to mix their own cookies.

 

[Photo Engineer]

John, again,, that post was not directed at anyone. This one is. It contains your name.

I post or I do not post. If I do post, it will be complete and accurate! If I do not post, I will not say anything and if someone senses that, and asks, I will comment that I am not posting. I will not omit or change anything in a formula except by human error.

PE

 

[removed account4]

ron, this post contains your name as well,

that is fantastic news: once again, thank you for the clarification !
i am certain your followers are sighing in relief
because as usual, you have laid it on the line, and you are
not following in the BIG footsteps of the emulsion makers
of days gone by.

i wonder how many of the mistakes you have found were
made "on purpose" or or made because of "human error" ..
people make mistakes all the time
( .. like me bothering to post in this thread . )

 

[Photo Engineer]

The errors I have been finding seem to be of just the two types. Omission / commission to alter or conceal and just plain human error. But then, at this far remove from some of them, nearly 100 years in some cases, it is hard to say what they were trying to say.

Wall talks about Hard and Soft gelatin. In his introduction, he says hard, medium and soft relate to gelation properties which we today consider related to Bloom Index, 75 being soft and 250 being hard. However, in spite of his definition, Agfa and other literature of that time classed those same degrees based on what seems to be today, active sulfur content. Wall gives the values in formulas copied from others, but does not give them for his own formulas. My question would be "why did he do any of this?".

OTOH, Glafkides or his aides just copied a table and did it incorrectly. If anyone copied this authority, it is not their fault. I believed it as well until I began looking into things in detail (see above misunderstanding).

The reason is that one emulsion in my notes keeps eluding me and it uses a coded gelatin type. I can't decode it. It is in my notes that way. OTOH, I can decode the salt, acid and base codes quite handily. I have to explain this in my new book.

PE