Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

No worries. Expelling all the potatoes would not make much sense, especially if you drink vodka, and expelling all the 'tarts' would put an even bigger dampener on things!

Isn't language fun!

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Perhaps we should also consider what is actually meant or interpreted by the terms socialist, liberal, conservative and so on. They mean different things to different people, and are not mutually exclusive depending on the context.

It reminds me of joke that a speaker at a conservative convention told in the run up to the 2012 election.

A liberal, a moderate, and a conservative walk into a bar. The barman says, "Hi Mitt!"

First, as a joke, I find it pretty funny. What the speaker didn't seem to comprehend was that as a practicing Mormon Mitt Romney wasn't very likely to walk into a bar.

However, back to the topic, WWII is very significant and had a profound impact on the world. Any record of those events is worth preserving and curating.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

And back at you. Oh, your father gave you great advice!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

A good macro lens can be had used for $200 to $400. New, they are around $300 to $600.

I needed to do this, but my twin boys just started college, so money was tight. I was able to tell my wife, "Hey, I spent $5.42 on the diffusion material used on the light source. The rest was leftover junk or gear I already had!"

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

You keep repeating these alternative facts. Why don't you cite one of these "scholarly articles"? Becoming an anti-communist is not the same as becoming a conservative. Let me repeat that because you keep missing the point or keep ignoring it. Becoming an anti-communist is not the same as becoming a conservative. He was and remained a socialist. Let me repeat that again, you missed it or choose to ignore it. He was and remained a socialist. He condemned the Communists he had previously aligned himself with because they abandoned their socialist ideals and became a totalitarian dictatorship under Stalin. (Like Pol Pot in Cambodia abandoned his socialist rhetoric and became a ruthless totalitarian dictator in the 1960's.) That was the whole point of Orwell's books Animal Farm and 1984. You are using a bunch of labels but seem to have no idea what they mean. Yes, like many intellectuals in the US and England, he changed his views on Communism because Communism changed. But he never became a conservative.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

[quote=Bobspez]You keep repeating these alternative facts. Why don't you cite one of these "scholarly articles"? Becoming an anti-communist is not the same as becoming a conservative.

Actually, if you consider that he was still a liberal, it makes the argument even more interesting in the current environment.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

The only thing I objected to was your statement that Orwell was a well-known liberal-turned-conservative. To me that's like saying Jesus was a Pharisee. The problem today is that the labels no longer apply in politics. They are just labels and talking points. They mean something different depending on who is using them. Thinking of Hillary as a liberal or Trump as a conservative is a perfect example. Neither is either. Back in 1964 when Goldwater ran against Johnson those labels described what the men stood for. Even then, Johnson pursuing the war was a departure from his liberal agenda domestically. Liberals praised his domestic policy and protested his foreign policy to the extent he chose to retire from politics. We saw something similar with Ron Paul. Domestically he was a total conservative, but was an isolationist regarding foreign policy and military spending. So as a "liberal" and "progressive" I agreed with his foreign policy, but not his domestic one. It's all too complicated to be described with the terms liberal and conservative any more. It's all just buzz words for the news networks.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Sounds pretty darned Libertarian to me! GREAT quotes from an exceptional thinker. And to think he died in 1950 and not last week... amazingly timeless.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

More alternative facts.
Your quote ... “Liberal: a power worshipper without power.”
George Orwell .. has often been attributed to him but he never wrote or said it. No one has ever come up with any citation for this quote, or given the work or speech it supposedly came from. It's just partisan hogwash.
Libertarian? Not likely. Another uninformed guess.
From his essay "Why I Write", published in 1946 (the year I was born) he expressed his own political beliefs.

" The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/897/

aellman Loc: Boston MA

As another member indicated, the Epson scanners are excellent. 35mm and 120 film. The Perfection Photo series. I have the V500,
but the latest models are the V600s. Very economical and excellent quality imaging.I got mine at the Epson Store online.
They have sales on non-current models. I got mine for $105. Retail $189. >Alan

Tim Stapp Loc: Mid Mitten

O.P. I would absolutely treasure the opportunity to print your negatives optically for you. Only cost would be for materials. I don't scan negatives: for digital, I shoot digital. I do have the ability to print optically from 35 mm negatives up to 4x5. I can do color, if it is necessary. PM me about this. If absolutely required, I can borrow a scanner. But, in my experience, scanning b&w negatives leads to less than optimal results.

Tim Stapp Loc: Mid Mitten

I might add, scanning optically printed prints leads to better results. I can do that for you as well.

NorCal Bohemian

“More Alternative Facts:” The flaccid epitaph thrown by Lefties whose agenda has been disproven by facts that they didn’t provide themselves and fall outside of their narrow propaganda narrative.

You were actually lucid when you replied to larryepage: “The problem today is that the labels no longer apply in politics. They are just labels and talking points. They mean something different depending on who is using them."
You should listen to yourself when you get it right! And yet, you continue to throw out labels and define other people’s viewpoints – be they Orwell’s, larryepage’s or mine – through your own hyper partisan narrow filter.

What did I say? “He was an original thinker, and doesn't fit in a neat box. Individualist, and Libertarian, I think, is a pretty good description.”

And what did you say? “We saw something similar with Ron Paul. Domestically he was a total conservative, but was an isolationist regarding foreign policy and military spending. So as a "liberal" and "progressive" I agreed with his foreign policy, but not his domestic one.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and even ran for President as a Libertarian. So are you saying that you are half Libertarian?

Not even Libertarians can come close to agreeing what Libertarian means. As the very recent meaning seems to have drifted towards a belief in fundamentalist minimalism in government, many are migrating towards the similar, but more encompassing, philosophy called “Classical Liberal”. Seeing as the Democrats and other lefties abandoned the term and belief in “Liberal” positions for “Progressive” policies – it’s only fit that those who believe in the fundamental rights of the individual – as ensconced in our Bill of Rights and the philosophy of the “Enlightenment” on which it is based, would reclaim the more original meaning of “Liberal”.

George Orwell was a Libertarian in his belief in the rights of the individual to be free from government oppression. Regarding foreign policy and military spending, by today’s definition of Libertarian – you are right that he is not.
“Pacifist: Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.”
George Orwell

“Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifist, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. … Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of fascism. All in all it is difficult to not to feel that pacifism … is inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty.”
George Orwell

“All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometime violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British.”
George Orwell

“Thereupon the people picked a leader nearer their mood, Churchill, who was at any rate able to grasp that wars are not won without fighting. Later, perhaps, they will pick another leader who can grasp that only Socialist nations can fight effectively.”
George Orwell

If you don’t understand that Orwell was an Individualist – than you truly don’t understand Orwell. He was not an economist; he was a novelist and a journalist. He didn’t preach a particular economic system orthodoxy – he wrote from the more emotional perspective of the individual being crushed by orthodoxy and totalitarian systems.
George Orwell learned from his experiences and changed as he grew. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Tim Stapp Loc: Mid Mitten

What was the original post again?

NorCal Bohemian

If you are implying that we got a little off topic - you would be correct! We got wayyyyy off topic. But we can try to bring it back. The OP asked about film from WWII. George Orwell lived during WWII. As he was most likely photographed during the same time period as the OP's film - what type of film do you think that it may have been? Probably not AGFA - given the war and all. Most likely Kodak, but did the British ever manufacture their own film - or cameras? Iv'e never been to the U.K. - and that was before my time, and so honestly don't know.