Anyone looked at [Zodiac Crime Scene Photographer]?

Zodiac was also well aware photographs could be traced back to him. Not something the average person probably knew.

Extrachewyy wrote:

I greatly appreciate your post Eduard! I was aware of this camera but knew almost nothing about it. What you've found is extensive! Z had to get his name from somewhere, and this camera seems to work well with this POI. Any chance someone knows if a camera like this, might have had a cross-hair in it's view finder?

EC I found a blog where someone is discussing this Zodiac camera. Perhaps you could ask the blogger about the crosshair view finder. He apparently has a website, too.

http://davelam.net/blog/?cat=12

tahoe27 wrote:

Zodiac was also well aware photographs could be traced back to him. Not something the average person probably knew.

Always wondered about that. It indicates he didn't the ability/equipment to develop his own photos which a photographer would have.

Seagull wrote:

Extrachewyy wrote:

I greatly appreciate your post Eduard! I was aware of this camera but knew almost nothing about it. What you've found is extensive! Z had to get his name from somewhere, and this camera seems to work well with this POI. Any chance someone knows if a camera like this, might have had a cross-hair in it's view finder?

EC I found a blog where someone is discussing this Zodiac camera. Perhaps you could ask the blogger about the crosshair view finder. He apparently has a website, too.

http://davelam.net/blog/?cat=12

Thanks for the link Seagull. I've asked Dave, just waiting on a response.
Regards page 4 of Zodiacs November 9, 1969 letter.


I agree tahoe, Z seems to know more about Photos than BTK new about floppy's I do however think traveller has a good point, if he were a photographer he probably could have developed his own photos. I was curious about his use of the word "pictures" instead of "photos", for some reason I have it in my head that's something photographers do?(talk pictures rather than photos)?

I know we (designers) always referred to them as pics (pictures) but if we were getting them from a photographer I think we referred to them as photos or images or shots. I can't remember how the photographers themselves referred to them but yeah, there was different terminology depending on who you were in the usage chain.

How about the use of the word "developer". As a photography layman, I would probably have said "the place where they were developed". Which in my case would likely have meant a drug store. Does taking film to a "developer" insinuate knowledge of photography beyond a basic level? Maybe just semantics. What sort of establishment would he be referring to anyway, and how would the trace work?

traveller1st wrote:

I know we (designers) always referred to them as pics (pictures) but if we were getting them from a photographer I think we referred to them as photos or images or shots. I can't remember how the photographers themselves referred to them but yeah, there was different terminology depending on who you were in the usage chain.

I just spoke to a couple of photographers, neither said there was a common term used. One of them talked about the word "image" being most commonly used since the digital age and the word "print" before that. The other however made no destinction between digital or pre-digital and suggested there was no common terminology used, that there were many terms used including photo, picture, exposure etc...and that he himself would have used "photo".

Very interesting. Great job Guest.

Qz1 wrote:

Very interesting. Great job Guest.

So like what happened to ExtraChewyy... now a quest? Did he deactivate his own account?
As far as I know, no Mod deactivated him. Any one know how to reach him to ask?
Was he really ExtraChewyy or was he someone else Jes wondering...

Were any prints from the crime scenes eliminated?