• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Photo Patents - No Words

Kirk Keyes

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,234
Location
Portland, OR
Format
4x5 Format
The recent threads about patents and the "multigrade" thread got me thinking. How about a thread about patents. You just list the patent number, it's title or a short description, and maybe a couple words about why you found this patent interesting. And if possible, a link to it to make it easy to access.

Most important, let's not get side-tracked with discussions about the content of the patent or it's usefulness, let's just build up a repository of patents that others can use to research and learn about photography.

So no words - at least in the sense of a discussion. Just a simple listing of interesting patents.

Thanks!
 
So here's the ones Ryuji listed in the multigrade thread, "Check out U.S. Patents 2,202,026 (Renwick), 2,280,300 (Potter et al), and, for your reference for the conceptual father of this technology, British Patent 15,054 of 1912 (Fischer)."

I haven't foud any links to these, but if you go to http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html you will find several patents that reference the ones above.
 
[Amusing but off topic post...--d.g.]

Exhibit A

Dead Link Removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Photography patents are very interesting, sometimes what appears to have been left out - but you assume happens can make a huge difference.

I'll give you an example; Make a fairly standard B&W emulsion, spray it on a surface, expose a neg to the emulsion via an enlarger, process normally. Is that new, no say the Patent Office

But the process was granted a patent . . . . . Why ? Because the gelatin emulsion was not dried, it was only allowed to set, so used like a "Wet Plate" emulsion.

BTW I held the Patent

Ian
 
I agree with Ian, and I can add that often your assumptions are wrong due to much of the patent material being on new ground. OTOH, the patent can be misleading by what is left out. It will work, but that is not the way it is done in manufacturing and it may take someone years to figure that out. After all, a patent need not disclose trade secrets.

PE
 
It's interesting reading older Patents, they are full of irrelevance. I read a lot a month or so ago and it was only hindsight that allowed me to realise the deliberate false tracks.

Ian
 
I know that feeling Ian.

I have almost 2 boxes full of patents here at home that were sent to me about items of interest to my R&D work. Not one of them helped. Our own internal work was much more significant. I can mention the patents on organic bleaching agents for sliver and the Cupric salt bleaches. Neither worked at all as advertized and a whole group of us failed to get them to work beyond simple examples. In fact, I've mentioed BP 911,412 (IIRC) that seemed to have patented just about every Ferric EDTA blix in existance, but in fact was wide open and didn't work in some of the examples due to formation of insoluable Ferric and Ferrous salts in the coating, just as the Copper did from the Copper blix patents. The list is long and sad.

Of course, emulsion work is even more obfuscating.

PE
 
I'm a bit reluctant to read patents at the moment. The last patents I read were rather recent ones seemingly on chromogenic films. I got NO idea beyond that what the authors were talking about, as if they had been written in a alien language...


Yes, I know the idea behind some patents applications and that keeps the fun off it.

Though, if you can present some really intriguing ones...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=y3...ig=9o4mnu5WTJZY3ALzEyG8PlKblg0&hl=en#PPA24,M1
http://www.google.com/patents?id=lE...4Oy-etV&sig=ggaL-QHVsqB6Qje30JDF-YSG5Dk&hl=en
 
You might note that the Renwick patent uses 2 different emulsions of ordinary type, one pure Chloride and the other ChloroBromide.

In addition, he mentions use of a dye that is tightly adsorbed to the grain.

So, you see that you can mix halides and you do use strong dyes.

The second patent to Potter et. al. describes the use of sensitizing dyes that decrease contrast. It is well known that many dyes both spectrally sensitize and antifog (reducing contrast) at the same time.

Both of these patents have been used in one incarnation or another.

PE
 
An agent that decreases fog would increase contrast. Wouldn't it?
 
The free google patent site (http://www.google.com/patents) is SUPERB for researching US patents. What is the best method of viewing UK patents?

Emulsion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those who took my workshops, try patent 2,614,929. It is one of the main patents on ISO washing. I ask you to consider if it resembles what we did in class. The big difference is that I used more Phthalated Gelatin to render the wash virtually foolproof for new students, but otherwise, what I did is close to the way we really did it and even though this patent works, it is not how it was carried out in practice as you will realize when you read the patent.

PE
 
AgX said:
An agent that decreases fog would increase contrast. Wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

PE, AgX, Ian - you guys are not following the intent of the thread. Do I need to get Ole to delete your off topic posts? :^)

Please refrain from making comments in this thread. If you have comments, and I'm sure you will, please start a separate thread.

Thanks -

PS - Ian, you can redeem yourself by posting the patent number for your process, as I actually think that people here might be interested in spraying emulsions.
 
OK, PE, 2,614,929 was interesting.
 
Photo Engineer said:
How would you equate the patent with what we really did? I think this is germaine to this thread.
Click to expand...

Must... not... debate... practice vs. patents here. (That was my best Shatner imitation there.) Let's start another thread then. Actually, I think that was done a week or so ago.

But if you want to take this one and discuss the patent vs. the practice of this specific practice, I'm all for that.
 

Yes, I started a patent thread where we could discuss issues like this, and it died.

PE
 
Okay, now that everyone's gotten off their chests the notions that patents can be ridiculous, misleading, and don't always reflect real practice, I think Kirk's original idea was a good one--let's make this thread a reference list of patents relating to emulsion making.

Ideally posts should have a link to the patent or the text of the patent, if it's very short, and a brief description or at least a title.

If you want to discuss the patent in question, please start a separate thread for the purpose, as was done for the ISO washing patent. If you're clever about it, you can even include a link to the discussion thread in your reference post for this thread. Try opening a new tab in your browser for the new thread before closing the reference in this thread, or post the discussion thread first, copy the URL to your clipboard, and paste the link to the discussion thread in your reference post in this thread.
 
you asked for it....and now you're gonna get it.

This thread started last July by Photo Engineer listed 4 very informative patents, and for some strange reason, aside from my response, the thread was completely ignored. If you look closely at the second patent listed, it shows how to make a graded iodide t-grain emulsion in very clear detail. The secrets are right in front of you, folks. It's all here, and has been since July of 07. Right on a silver (halide) platter. Hiding in plain sight, as it were.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Look what else PE shares about the second patent: "I worked with one of the inventors during the development of this type of emulsion, when I was working on the emulsion design program and model."

If the information and what it means was any clearer it would bite you on the ass. It's interesting how everyone who 'wants information' , and 'please share what you know' etc, etc, somehow completely ignored or overlooked this thread. Perhaps we were too busy paying attention to other self described 'experts' who still...TO THIS DAY....haven't posted a single piece of evidence to back up their claims.

Are you awake yet?

Bob M.
 
Neanderman said:
Sheppard, "Photographic light-sensitive material and proces of making the same." 1926.

Sulfur sensitization. Still widely referenced.
Click to expand...
Any ideas on how to print these out? It's a quicktime video or something...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register