From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Astrocam
Organization: U of M Hospitals
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:37:03 GMT

In article <1SEP199209281957@almach.caltech.edu> shoppa@almach.caltech.edu (TIM
SHOPPA) writes:
.
.deleted stuff
.
>>> >
>>> >Using a Polaroid, I presume...!
>>> >-- 
>>> How would that work Chris?  Would you just let the camera spit them out and
let
>>> them flutter to the ground?  Sounds good to me. ;-)
>> 
>>You'd rather bring your personal one-hour film developing lab out to the
>>field in your Step-Van so you can develop your photos in time to have half 
>>a shot at getting your lost model back?
>>-- 
>> 
>>cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
>>OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
>
>Well, you don't need to bring out a huge machine in a special van -
>there are easier ways:
>
>1.  Polaroid makes a special 35mm color slide film that is processed in
>a small hand-operated machine.  I don't know all the details, but these
systems
>were very common at one time for producing color slides from computer
>displays.  The film isn't particularly cheap, though, and the processing
>machine is maybe $100-$200, I think.  A full-line photography store ought
>to be able to give you info on this.

Whoa - I was just trying for a little humor.  When I read Chris's Polaroid
comment the first thing that came to mind was a plane flying over the field
trailing a load of prints all fluttering down to the ground.  That seemed like
a humorous image to me.  On the serious side of Polaroid, I remember reading an
article a few months ago about some one putting a Polaroid camera in a large
(5"-8" dia.) rocket.  The camera looked backwards and spit the pictures into a
compartment in side the payload section.  lso, you'd have to have an awfully
thick (tall) fuselage or a mirror for a Poloriod to 'look down' from a
horizontally flying airplane.

>
>2.  A little more economical is to process the film yourself, by hand.  You
>would need what is called a "dark bag" to unload the film from the 35mm
>cartridge and wind the film onto a developing reel, which is then put in
>a light-proof developing tank.  (Actually, winding film inside a bag onto
>a reel isn't very easy unless you get one of the dark bags that has nice
>lightproof gloves on it!)  Then you go through the developing process,
>which consists of pouring different solutions in and out of the developing
>tank.  Developing is different for b/w, color negative, and color transparency
>films, but little kits for all of these processes are available at most
>photography stores.  The developing tank is lightproof with a little light-
>trapped funnel in the top for pouring the solutions in and out.
>You can easily get negatives or slides in an hour.  Total cost of permanent
>equipment is $50-$60 (most of which is for a dark bag), and the chemicals
>amount to $1-$2 per roll, depending on whether you are doing b/w,
>color negative, or color slides.
>

My recollection of film processing is that the wash takes a lot of water - not
something readily available in the field.  B/W processing used to be done at 68
degrees (times can be fudged to compensate for temperatures around 68) but,
unless the chemistry has changed alot, color requires elevated temperatures
(100 degrees typical) and tight temperature control - something else probably
not easily done in the field.   Also trying to keep the film clean while it is
drying may be a problem.

I'll stick with the 1-hour film place.