“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?

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.

Thank you for your answer and the link to Ilford history. I had completely forgotten that they were a British company.

I agree with you in your reply to Tim Stapp. I worked in the Graphic Arts industry for years, and was a technical sales representative for graphic cameras for many of them. In analogue photography and graphic arts prepress - it is always true that every generation of reproduction degrades an image, even if only to a small degree. To preserve a likely brittle negative and possibly historically important photograph, a high quality scan of the negative to be used for digital printing will yield the best archival results. A first generation print or series of prints, from the negative, on archival paper could also be a solution. The advantage of the scanned film is in the limiting of the handling of the delicate negative and the potential to make high quality prints in the future.

Thank you for your quick reply! Having recently seen the movie “Dunkirk”, I guess that I have WWII and the heroism of British citizens on my mind. Kodak was certainly an international brand, and so could have been used. As rehess suggests this morning, Ilford was manufacturing film in Britain at the time, and so also is a likely possibility. I’ve been out of the photography business for 17 years now, and Ilford had completely slipped my mind.
I do want to thank you for your frequent informative posts. While there is a lot of bad information that gets posted on UHH, I find that you stand out amongst a handful of knowledgeable and credible posters in giving your time to share your valuable knowledge and insights. As I am reacquainting myself with the world of photography in the 21st century – I greatly appreciate your information and advice. Given some of the cranky blowhards spewing misinformation on this site, your generally excellent posts keep me from signing off! Thank you for making UHH worth reading!