25 Years Ago in JBPA/JBP  


Straight prints made on the same enlarger from identically processed negatives.
(A) Negative made on standard radiographic viewbox with standard tube. (B) Same radiograph copied on illuminator which incorporates selective illumination. From Selective illuminator for Radiographs” by Garreth L. Gauthier.

The first paper that caught my attention was Selective illuminator for Radiographs” authored by Garreth L. Gauthier. Once again it was déjà vu. Although the apparatus is quite complex in construction, I used similar equipment for photographing all of my backlit subjects. This paper illustrates how greater control can be obtained in the reproduction of radiographs by selective illumination. This method seems to me to be better than the standard flash back illumination used by so many practitioners.

The next paper “Practical comparison of highly regarded developers” By Richard L. Herman puzzled me somewhat, as I could tell little difference between the prints from negatives processed in the four different developers. I would have expected a considerable difference between Rodinol and Dektol for example; the one containing paraphenylenediamine involving rather longer developing times but producing a very fine grain, the other considered a general purpose developer. Perhaps the original prints would show what the author was trying to demonstrate and this was lost in the Journal reproduction screen.

 “Photographic mounting boards and adhesives – what to look for” An extremely useful paper on archival methods used to mount photographs. This was written by Thea Jirat-Wasiutynski, who happened to be a student in the first post graduate course I taught at Queens College, approximately thirty years ago! What she reported still applies now, and should be closely followed today for valuable prints.                                                                                             

“A Systematic Approach to Medical Motion Picture Production” will, I am sure, appeal to the one-man shop desperately trying to produce a respectable motion picture or video, with very limited staff and practically no money! This paper By Robert L. Myers is a fine piece of work, and for a large well heeled department extremely useful. What it does demonstrate very well is the planning that must go into the making of either film or video regardless of the costs involved. Times are a changing – a 30 second commercial thirty years ago might cost in the neighborhood of $15,000; today one is looking at $250,000 minimum.



With the passing of Peter Hansell, Ron Irvine picks up the pen to continue "25 Years ago in the Journal of Biological Photography" and writes under the pseudonym Scriptor. Irvine is a long-time member and fellow of BCA and IMI. He is a Registered Biological Photographer, Fellow of the BCA, and an honorary member and fellow of IMI. His e-mail address is irviron@gmail.com.

Copyright 2007, The Journal of Biocommunication, All Rights Reserved
Table of Contents for VOLUME 33, NUMBER 2