MJK1 and MJK3

[GUT]

Hi Gut

I was thinking of the tintype cameras, which were reversed left to right, unless taken through a mirror.

The prints do look different judging by the quality of the pics, MJK 3 looks like a better quality, where else the full length pic looks poor quality.

Would it have been possible that someone had used an old camera to take the pic? How expensive were the newer models in 1888?

G'day Natasha

The first Kodak actually it the market in '88 pre loaded for, from memory 100 photos sold in USA $25 so in terms of income to buy pretty damn expensive a plate camera of any quality from 5 pound and up plus the cost of plates paper and chemicals for processing. Remember there were no mini-labs.

[Natasha]

G'day Natasha

The first Kodak actually it the market in '88 pre loaded for, from memory 100 photos sold in USA $25 so in terms of income to buy pretty damn expensive a plate camera of any quality from 5 pound and up plus the cost of plates paper and chemicals for processing. Remember there were no mini-labs.

Hi Gut

Thanks for the info

[Wickerman]

I'm really not sure!! I just remember a LOT of discussion and someone outlining it like I have just done. In my opinion, I don't see how such a clean cut split femur could be accomplished without a bone saw.

Hi Brenda.
Actually, I thought it was the larger body photo which showed her right femur, just by the hip there is a dark line barely visible.



Didn't Nick point this out as part of his evidence for the use of a hatchet?
The femur appears to be broken right at that dark line.
I think it's a trick of the light, but regardless, I thought this was pointed out by Nick.

[Phil Carter]

G'day Natasha

The first Kodak actually it the market in '88 pre loaded for, from memory 100 photos sold in USA $25 so in terms of income to buy pretty damn expensive a plate camera of any quality from 5 pound and up plus the cost of plates paper and chemicals for processing. Remember there were no mini-labs.

Hello GUT,

Am intruiged. Could you be kind enough to explain or perhaps answer a few questions I have? Thank you.

From memory the camera was affixed to a tripod of sorts. Am I correct in saying that the legs of the tripod were of a fixed height or length? i.e. non-retractable?

Also- approximately what was the weight of the camera when detached? I would imagine it to be quite heavy?

Were camera hand held photographs a normal occurrance?

Do you happen to know if it were common for a photographer to carry around with him oh- say 6 or 7 glass plates?

Your answers would be most appreciated. Thank you

best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

Also- approximately what was the weight of the camera when detached? I would imagine it to be quite heavy?

Were camera hand held photographs a normal occurrance?

Do you happen to know if it were common for a photographer to carry around with him oh- say 6 or 7 glass plates?

Hi Phil.

Just a couple of points.

A 19th century leather bound wood box turned up on some Antiques program on tv. It was photographers equipment, for carrying spare glass plates. I don't recall how many slots were in the box but it was not less than six, but not more than twelve.

Also, don't forget these professionals always had an assistant burdened with carrying god knows what.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

As I pointed out ten thousand posts ago, MJK3 needed at least two people to pull it off.

Keep up.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Like a photographer and his assistant?

Keep up.

[Brenda]

Hi Brenda.
Actually, I thought it was the larger body photo which showed her right femur, just by the hip there is a dark line barely visible.



Didn't Nick point this out as part of his evidence for the use of a hatchet?
The femur appears to be broken right at that dark line.
I think it's a trick of the light, but regardless, I thought this was pointed out by Nick.

Hi Jon,
I only had time to half-heartedly search through Nick Warren, surgeon, on Google before going to dinner, and I wasn't able to find anything he had stated regarding MJK other than that snippet of dissertation I posted. I will have a further look, but I am wondering if he was actually on the boards posting at one time? And if so, if some of that got lost in the crash....

But until I can delve into Google further, I DID come up with this wonderful (and timely!) article about how we Ripperologists are all ready to strangle each other! Solid gold....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/at-each-others-throats-over-jack-the-ripper-1598714.html

[jerryd]

Hi Wickerman,

As I pointed out ten thousand posts ago, MJK3 needed at least two people to pull it off.

Keep up.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

I've told you a billion times not to exaggerate.

Sláinte!

jerryd

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.

Just a couple of points.

A 19th century leather bound wood box turned up on some Antiques program on tv. It was photographers equipment, for carrying spare glass plates. I don't recall how many slots were in the box but it was not less than six, but not more than twelve.

Also, don't forget these professionals always had an assistant burdened with carrying god knows what.

Hello Jon,

Thanks for this that partly answers my questions, It also leads to a thought,

Do you recall in the dim and distant past, when talking of the occurrances re the marginalia that somebody made query of the fact that for it (the story) to have happened- it would be likely that quite a few people would had to have known about it (by being there) yet never had we heard a verbal hand me down from anyone, ever?

The long suffering assistant you mention a) isnt mentioned re, Millers Court and b) anyone in that room would have remembered that forever, Among the working class such a story would likely have been passed on from father to son etc. Yet, again- we hear nothing of anything from any such family. Lets face it- thats one heck of a yarn to say nothing about 'being there'.

Phil

[Brenda]

.

p.s. It doesn't make my Nick Warren Googling any easier when Nick Cave and Warren Ellis have an album called "The English Surgeon"

[Simon Wood]

Hi jerryd,

Nice one.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
I only had time to half-heartedly search through Nick Warren, surgeon, on Google before going to dinner, and I wasn't able to find anything he had stated regarding MJK other than that snippet of dissertation I posted. I will have a further look, but I am wondering if he was actually on the boards posting at one time? And if so, if some of that got lost in the crash....

But until I can delve into Google further, I DID come up with this wonderful (and timely!) article about how we Ripperologists are all ready to strangle each other! Solid gold....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/at...r-1598714.html

Hi Brenda.
I don't recall Nick being on the Boards, if he was it was in the late 90's. I didn't know everybody on the Boards back then.
Thats a few crashes ago now
Unless you have the Archived disks from Casebook Ver. 1?

I might have read his Ripperana article, its too long back now to remember, but I'm sure it was in that article where he offered his opinion on the hatchet.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Stap me vitals, it's tough to slip anything past you.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Phil.

The trouble with being an assistant is you live your life in someone else's shadow. Nothing would work without you, but no-one ever mentions you.
In a very class conscious society "The Photographer", includes you!
The assistant does not get top billing, or any billing for that matter

Clark doesn't always get a mention with Phillips, Hibbert likewise is often invisible with Bond. Johnson might not have got a mention at all if he hadn't been sent on ahead of Blackwell.
Such is life.