Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

That's very interesting about the Altgens roll. I have often wondered
> >> why the shots are so free of grain. The film used, if memory serves me
> >> correctly was Kodak Tri-X Pan which is a 400 ASA film, long the staple
> >> of press photographers. Films shot by press guys were usually developed
> >> in large tanks using an undiluted fast developer, the common technique
> >> was bung it in the tank for 2 minutes. This development is not ideal,
> >> especially in how much grain it produces in the negatives. To minimise
> >> grain with a fast film like Tri-X Pan you develop in a highly diluted
> >> developer for an extended period of time such as a 1:10 dilution for 15
> >> mins. My suspicion is that the Altgens roll was given the latter, more
> >> careful type of development, which is why it has fine grain and a good
> >> tonal range which strongly suggests that it was not developed in a
> >> newspaper's lab with the usual deep tank method. Compared to other
> >> images taken that say in Dealey the higher quality of the Altgens images
> >> is clear.
> >>
> >> To edit the image, they would have made an enlargement of the original
> >> negative which was then retouched using ink pens and fine brushes. This
> >> retouched image would have then been rephotographed to produce a new
> >> negative.

The above is by Ian Greenhalgh within an OIC discussion that we are having. Notice that he said that after retouching the enlargement, they would have rephotographed to produce a new negative, which explains this:

> >> I happen to have some 1960s vintage BW film, not Tri-X Pan, but
> >> equivalent, same speed, same emulsion type just different makers. I also
> >> have a 135mm lens very similar to the Nikon one Altgens used so I am in
> >> a position to be able to do some test shots using this old film and
> >> optics, which may be useful in giving a base for comparison and perhaps
> >> illuminate some issues with the Altgens images.