Talk:Photostat machine

Photostat or similar for copying documents in WWII Poland?

How likely might it be that a photostat machine or one with similar technology would have been available to underground organizations in Nazi-occupied Warsaw in 1943/44? -- Deborahjay 09:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Note: subsequent consultation with a Polish historian colleague indicates the likelihood that the primary method employed for this purpose was microfilming using a camera. -- Deborahjay 12:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian "error"?

FYI

– Section heading added by Undead Shambles (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...what's with the Malaysian "error" in this article? Not only is a bit obtuse, it doesn't have the same objective tone as the rest of the article. Malaysian use of "photostat" to "copy" something doesn't make it an error. Also, the source used as a reference is somebody's blog. Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsokhi (talk • contribs) 23:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed Image

Why is the image reversed in a prism? Not explained.

79.65.53.89 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for reversing the image is because the photostat produced a direct negative print (without the use of film). Reversing the image would make the resulting print legible. 2001:558:6017:189:4857:3BE0:CCA0:87E4 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does a Photostat negative exist as a paper copy as well as the Photostat positives?

The article has as follows: The photographic prints produced by such machines are commonly referred to as "photostats". Shouldn't this be "The photographic prints produced from the negative made by the machine are commonly referred to as photostats." Does the Photstat machine make a negative and the same machine make the positive prints? Victoryjc (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is correct. The photostat produced a negative print directly (without the use of film). The article then mentions that the resulting photostat could then itself be photostated again to produce a positive image. 2001:558:6017:189:4857:3BE0:CCA0:87E4 (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong patent?

The patent listed in the article is from 1910 for a copying camera. The same inventor's patent from 1913 , 1127231, has the features described in the ad shown in the article, and seems to be more clearly aimed at copying documents. Edison (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither one is wrong; they're both relevant. They both involve using cameras, as the 1913 patent says, as "machines for making photographic copies of documents and other relatively small objects of different sizes." Besides convenient photography of objects, the 1910 patent clearly mentions "being of great utility in obtaining photographic copies of written documents, records, etc." That's exactly what the phrase "copying camera" was referring to. The 1913 patent should be mentioned in the article. I'll go add it. — ¾-10 02:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photostat As A Noun And Verb

I remember "photostat" and "photostatting" still being in use to describe any sort of document copying/photocopier machine when I was young in the 1970s here in the UK. That is how I know the word and came to look up its origin in this article. "Xerox" and "xeroxing" did not have the same degree of use as general words, people said either "photostat" or "photocopy". These days it seems to me to be just "photocopy".82.71.30.178 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A photostat was a negative (but re-reversed) image ... that is a typewritten document copied by photostat would be legible, but the background paper would be black, and the typewritten letters in white. Photocopying, on the other hand, directly produced a positive image. By the 1970's the distinction came to be lost as the photostat was no longer in use. Many photostated documents remain in archives, but if you access digital scans of those documents, the digital image is usually reversed, so the original "white on black" nature of a photostat is no longer obvious. 2001:558:6017:189:4857:3BE0:CCA0:87E4 (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]