Mary Moorman Tells Story

[Davyjones]

Ok Lets see what Mary Ann says.

[JDThomas]

Deborah,I think that you have it completly wrong here. Please investigate Polaroid cameras of this vintage before speculating. We had one such camera although not identical to Mary's. There were more than a few photos on a roll, but not as many as a conventional negative film as the full-sized photo had to be incorporated into the roll. After each photo was taken, the film frame had to be pulled out of the side-back of the camera and ripped clear of the film roll (or cut). Exposed frames cannot be retained in the camera.The negative back of the photo denoted the frame number at the top right - I think that the the number at the top left was either the batch number or else a film type number (different camera models had different size photos). I clearly remember the film being very difficult and messy to handle, with jelly-like substance ozzing out of the sides of the film after it had be ripped-out.I was stilll using similar film into the 1990's to take pictures of DNA electrophoresis gels under UV light when I worked in genetic research labs. I'm sure that I've still got some exposed film which may have numbering on the back. I'll check check this out when I have time.I don't mean to be rude in my response, but it is better to be blunt than to let people blunder down the wrong path.best to you

[Deborah]

Dear JDWith due respect, I am not speculating that Mary Ann Moorman has stated she took two photos on one roll of film which was already in her camera on the morning of the 22nd, then loaded a new roll of film into her camera before taking the next three photos of the day on the new roll of film. A total of five photos in all on two separate rolls of film. Mary Ann has said same in her May 24th interview and in previous recountings of the day which she has given. The part I am speculating about is how it might be that the community is confused by the numbering currently evident and prominent on copied images of the original photos leading some people to believe they were all taken in sequence on one roll of film or some such other theory. Like I said, I have put the question of the manufacturers' numbering to the forum on iantique.com for Mary Ann or Gary Stover to respond to. I am sure they will and I will get back to you. With Kind Regards,Deborah

[Alex Hidell]

Level Set- Polaroid film didn't come on a roll.It came in a packet containing 8-10 individual pieces of film. Each individual piece of film was a self contained developing kit so that when you removed the film from the camera, deveoper and fixer were activated and in 30 seconds, you had a print. These film packets were sealed, so there shouldn't be any mess or oozing of liquid.I believe the film packets came with either 8 or 10 individual films in them.

[Wayne Stracener]

Mary used type 37 asa 3000 rollfilm which came out in early 1963 and was the first 10sec rollfilm designed for x-rays and since it was highly sensitive to light was meant to be sold to professionals only but many sales clerks in department stores did not have the knowledge to know better.Type 30 series roll film (2½" × 3¼")Type 31, ISO 100, black and whiteType 32, ISO 200, black and whiteType 37, ISO 3000, black and whiteType 38, ISO 75, color



spools.jpg (15.44 KiB) Viewed 11409 times

[Wayne Stracener]

In the photo below pics are marked for the reader to follow the posters description, they are not meant to be the order that mary took them, Photos #1 and #2 are the last two photos from the first roll of film, Factory numbered on the back #7 and #8, To which Mary claims. There is no way to prove that they could be the last two from the second roll.It makes since when you look at what follows the picture where it was posted.

[Dealey Joe]

[Dealey Joe]

From Ebay...-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polaroid 95, the first and earliest of Polaroids cameras, roll film , w. bulb flash. My Uncle was the first in our family to have one. Still has the little yellow instructions for pulling the front out. Looks like it's barely been used, only a few minor marks on the front lens plate. The rollers inside are almost new looking. Has the early optical finder and spring. Shutter works just fine.

[Davyjones]

Dealey,its amazing how things change.These days people take pics using there phone!Who would have thought that would have happened.Returning to the topic.Deborah. Are you having any luck with the Moorman camp in explaining the backs of her pics showing 3-5 when they should be 1-3?Wayne.Thanks for your advice that the film came on a roll.I remember poleriod stuff being in a flatpack but it was way later than 1963. You show in your post the 5 pics marked up 1-5 but make no reference to the issue of what the backs of the photos show. That should be 7and 8 for the car photos and 1-3 for the Dealey Plaza pics using the new roll.(if the markings are on the poleriod film)The markings on the back look like poleriod film numbers not evidence markings?Using the camera, only by checking these numbers would you know how many shots you had left? I am sure their is a simple explanation and I hope to find out what it is.

[Wayne Stracener]