To my knowledge most of the film is made by Kodak in Rochester. Kodak Alaris markets the still film but it is still made by Kodak.

Some people like grain.

Ha. You beat me to it. Such an exciting announcement!

Depends on your definition of camera. Washington likely would have know what a camera obsucra or camera lucida was at the time. The camera obsucra dates back as we know it to at least the 1100s. The camera lucida may date back to the 1600s. It is thought by several scholars that it is possible that the Dutch masters such as Johannes Vermeer used such an optical device as a painting aid. The painter and art critic David Hockney is one of the proponents of this theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockney%E2%80%93Falco_thesis

Interestingly, according to Geoffery Batchen, the optical and chemical knowledge for photography was available as early as 1725. His research on this was part of a discussion I took part in at a potential grad school earlier this month. The discussion was about the cultural need to fix photographs and why photography took so long for all the pieces to come together.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/10/19/reviews/971019.19boxert.html

Yes

Yes. Right before I posted them

That is his start page. Click on the image and the rest of the website will appear.

I am typically influenced by older photographic movements, primarily the photographers of the Bauhaus, Italian Futurists, Surrealists and Russian Constructivists, however, I am of course influenced by contemporary photographers.

Michael Peven. He was my mentor in college. He influenced much of my philosophical and conceptual thinking as well as giving me much of my technical foundation. He had a fanstastic knowledge of photographic history and he always knew exactly whose work I should be looking at. http://www.michaelpeven.com/

An interview: http://artismoving.org/i-am-artist-michael-peven/

Crystal Mcbrayer: Another of my professors. Her work and thinking has heavily influenced me.
http://www.crystalmcbrayer.com/

Dornith Doherty: Her work continues to influence me. Her use of scientific processes and equipment is what has drawn me to her work. In particular my favorite works of her's are her lenticular seed collage images.
https://www.dornithdoherty.com/

Hiroshi Sugimoto: His work influenced much of my thoughts on time and the properties of reality. In particular his theaters series has influenced me the most. However, lately I have been more interested in his diorama photographs and lightning fields.
https://www.sugimotohiroshi.com/

Michael Kenna: His use of heavy shadows influenced me. In particular I am draw to his night work.
http://www.michaelkenna.net/

Todd Hiddo: His night work had a major influence on me. While I do not work in color that often, I find the mood in his work and his use of color fascinating.
http://www.toddhido.com/

Have you contacted the Eastman Museum?

I am presuming that they are gelatin rather than dry collodion but I may be wrong of course. The article mentions yellowing as a form of oxidation. This is likely because of storage conditions rather than improper processing. Glad they scanned well.

I've ran across similar negatives in the archives at the museum where I work. Can't recall what causes it. They printed rather well in the darkroom. I figure they should scan just fine as well. I would suggest against using wet scanning with these.

Here is a good resource I found with an initial search.
https://psap.library.illinois.edu/collection-id-guide/negative

And this a problem or makes the work less?

I think the issue I am having is your idea that the point and shoot mentality must be "recontrived" into art whereas it can be art from the beginning. The snapshot aesthetic has been part of art photography since the 1960s perhaps longer but this was time that acceptance began in museums and among art critics. However, this does not of course make a snapshot automatically art that is dependent upon the intent of the creator and the use of the image.

As far as my work, it is mostly preconceived but not really in the same way as Adams did.

I don't mean fake. A lot of photographic work has been "contrived" in "post-processing" since nearly the beginning of photography. Furthermore what does it matter? Painting broke free from the bonds of reality so photography must do so as well and it did quite some time ago. Unless one is a documentary photographer or a photojournalist "reality" is moot because the photograph is its own reality as an image and an object. Similar to hwo novels are their own realities. However, I seriously hope that this discussion doesn't devolve into another get it "right in camera" vs "computer manipulated" debate. It is a tiresome debate.

Your comment was that "at least Eggleston shoots real subjects." This implies that there are fake subjects. Are talking about his work as being documentary rather than constructed such as Gregory Crewdson's work?

Shooting without consideration, not necessarily, many shoot thousands or pictures like Eggleston, Garry Winogrand and Martin Parr and then edit down later. I presume that their connections for the work are made throughout this editing down process rather than when they set out. However, it could be that they have a lose idea when they set out and then refine it through this process. I'm not really sure one way or the either.

My understanding is that, Jerry Uelsmann collects images for later use in his composite images. The point being that it may appear mindless at the beginning but becomes less so in the end. The haphazard image may gain significance later down the road.