Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Colour photographs from 1900s-1940s

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 8:52:36 PM
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 9:52:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ian lincoln wrote:
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127173956.411254.105930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > It's like a time trip.
> >
> > http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/fsac/1a33000/1a33900/...
> > http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-8086.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> > Russia
> > http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
> >
> > US
> > http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html
> > http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/index.jsp
>
> I find the 2nd one of a fat bloke in the blue coat unlikely to be original.
> No film in that era was that good. It may have been a slide but still a
> slide that has been scaned and then impressively photoshopped.

There's a page about this

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html
September 20, 2005 1:31:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ian lincoln wrote:
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127173956.411254.105930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > It's like a time trip.
> >
> > http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/fsac/1a33000/1a33900/...
> > http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-8086.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> > Russia
> > http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/

>
> I find the 2nd one of a fat bloke in the blue coat unlikely to be original.
> No film in that era was that good. It may have been a slide but still a
> slide that has been scaned and then impressively photoshopped.

It is from 3 separate panchromatic plates taken through
tricolour filters. Wratten and Wainwright made panchromatic
plates starting in 1906, and tricolour separation filters
(of which the red and green are identical to those used today)
in 1907. It has been possible to make colour photographs
of exquisite quality this way since 1907. Computer processing
has certainly helped make these images available, though I think
that a skilled person could probably have made beautiful
tricolour-carbon prints from these negatives using techniques
available in the early 20th century. Making such prints
was expensive and time consuming and required a worker of
extra-ordinary skill.

The pictures were originally intended for projection from
3 B&W lantern slides projected with filters. It would be
very interesting to see the slides projected with such a system.


Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb.net
September 20, 2005 1:40:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

William Graham wrote:

> Well, both "Gone With the Wind", and "The Wizard of Oz" were in color, and
> they date back to 1939 I believe. So color film was pretty good by the 40's.

Both movies were shot on the old Technicolor process, which used
three B&W negatives. Gone With the Wind had fairly realistic colour,
while Wizard of Oz was way over the top on purpose.

It is certainly remarkable what could be done with systems which
employed three separate B&W negatives.

Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb.net
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 4:39:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127173956.411254.105930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's like a time trip.
>
> http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/fsac/1a33000/1a33900/...
> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-8086.jpg
>
>
>
> Russia
> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
>
> US
> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html
> http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/index.jsp

I find the 2nd one of a fat bloke in the blue coat unlikely to be original.
No film in that era was that good. It may have been a slide but still a
slide that has been scaned and then impressively photoshopped.
September 20, 2005 4:39:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:39:04 GMT, "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote:

>
><casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1127173956.411254.105930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> It's like a time trip.
>>
>> http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/fsac/1a33000/1a33900/...
>> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-8086.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> Russia
>> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
>>
>> US
>> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html
>> http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/index.jsp
>
>I find the 2nd one of a fat bloke in the blue coat unlikely to be original.
>No film in that era was that good. It may have been a slide but still a
>slide that has been scaned and then impressively photoshopped.
>

I have color slides from 1945 that are excellent quality, I don't know much
about the film other then it was Kodak, taken by my father. Not sure when it
came out.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 4:39:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bob" <BobFlintsTone@spam.com> wrote in message
news:vo1vi1lnhcbubjtk4jcdm8ulje0sbckk8k@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:39:04 GMT, "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1127173956.411254.105930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> It's like a time trip.
>>>
>>> http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/fsac/1a33000/1a33900/...
>>> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-8086.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Russia
>>> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
>>>
>>> US
>>> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html
>>> http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/index.jsp
>>
>>I find the 2nd one of a fat bloke in the blue coat unlikely to be
>>original.
>>No film in that era was that good. It may have been a slide but still a
>>slide that has been scaned and then impressively photoshopped.
>>
>
> I have color slides from 1945 that are excellent quality, I don't know
> much
> about the film other then it was Kodak, taken by my father. Not sure when
> it
> came out.
>
Well, both "Gone With the Wind", and "The Wizard of Oz" were in color, and
they date back to 1939 I believe. So color film was pretty good by the 40's.
September 21, 2005 1:58:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:

> ian lincoln wrote:
>
>><casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1127173956.411254.105930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>It's like a time trip.
>>>
>>>http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/fsac/1a33000/1a33900/...
>>>http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-8086.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Russia
>>>http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
>>>
>>>US
>>>http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html
>>>http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/index.jsp
>>
>>I find the 2nd one of a fat bloke in the blue coat unlikely to be original.
>>No film in that era was that good. It may have been a slide but still a
>>slide that has been scaned and then impressively photoshopped.
>
>
> There's a page about this
>
> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html
>

The final image in that page looks like oil colored B&W.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 5:29:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter" <pirwin@ktb.net> writes:

> William Graham wrote:
>
>> Well, both "Gone With the Wind", and "The Wizard of Oz" were in color, and
>> they date back to 1939 I believe. So color film was pretty good by the 40's.
>
> Both movies were shot on the old Technicolor process, which used
> three B&W negatives. Gone With the Wind had fairly realistic colour,
> while Wizard of Oz was way over the top on purpose.

As I recall, Technicolor tended toward extreme color saturation.
Growing up, our 1963 Encyclopedia Brittanica had color plates of
various types of theatrical makeup, including one for Technicolor. To
get a credible skin tone, the actor's face was pretty much painted
gray.

> It is certainly remarkable what could be done with systems which
> employed three separate B&W negatives.

In particular, archival durability. There are plenty of films from the
early single-strip era (1950's) that have deteriorated badly due to
the relatively unstable organic dyes that form the image, whereas much
older 3-strip Technicolor, stored properly, shows virtually no loss,
as the image is a black-and-white one (or three) formed from silver.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 10:31:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<westin@graphics.cornell.nospam.edu> wrote in message
news:s0d5mzhev8.fsf@kingslake.graphics.cornell.edu...
> "Peter" <pirwin@ktb.net> writes:
>
>> William Graham wrote:
>>
>>> Well, both "Gone With the Wind", and "The Wizard of Oz" were in color,
>>> and
>>> they date back to 1939 I believe. So color film was pretty good by the
>>> 40's.
>>
>> Both movies were shot on the old Technicolor process, which used
>> three B&W negatives. Gone With the Wind had fairly realistic colour,
>> while Wizard of Oz was way over the top on purpose.
>
> As I recall, Technicolor tended toward extreme color saturation.
> Growing up, our 1963 Encyclopedia Brittanica had color plates of
> various types of theatrical makeup, including one for Technicolor. To
> get a credible skin tone, the actor's face was pretty much painted
> gray.
>
>> It is certainly remarkable what could be done with systems which
>> employed three separate B&W negatives.
>
> In particular, archival durability. There are plenty of films from the
> early single-strip era (1950's) that have deteriorated badly due to
> the relatively unstable organic dyes that form the image, whereas much
> older 3-strip Technicolor, stored properly, shows virtually no loss,
> as the image is a black-and-white one (or three) formed from silver.
>
Well, they still separate color photos into three printing plates for
magazine color plate printing, I believe....I knew a girl who did that, and
she made quite a lot of money at it. (you have to be talented)
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 11:22:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:29:31 -0400, westin wrote:

> In particular, archival durability. There are plenty of films from the
> early single-strip era (1950's) that have deteriorated badly due to
> the relatively unstable organic dyes that form the image, whereas much
> older 3-strip Technicolor, stored properly, shows virtually no loss,
> as the image is a black-and-white one (or three) formed from silver.
The negative is silver but the positive print is a variation of the
tri-chrome-carbro process. The positve is printed (on the special pos.
film stock), then the silver image is bleached out with a hardening bleach
and the non hardened parts washed away leaving the coloured image.

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
September 26, 2005 4:12:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

William Graham wrote:

> <westin@graphics.cornell.nospam.edu> wrote in message
> news:s0d5mzhev8.fsf@kingslake.graphics.cornell.edu...
>
>>"Peter" <pirwin@ktb.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>William Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, both "Gone With the Wind", and "The Wizard of Oz" were in color,
>>>>and
>>>>they date back to 1939 I believe. So color film was pretty good by the
>>>>40's.
>>>
>>>Both movies were shot on the old Technicolor process, which used
>>>three B&W negatives. Gone With the Wind had fairly realistic colour,
>>>while Wizard of Oz was way over the top on purpose.
>>
>>As I recall, Technicolor tended toward extreme color saturation.
>>Growing up, our 1963 Encyclopedia Brittanica had color plates of
>>various types of theatrical makeup, including one for Technicolor. To
>>get a credible skin tone, the actor's face was pretty much painted
>>gray.
>>
>>
>>>It is certainly remarkable what could be done with systems which
>>>employed three separate B&W negatives.
>>
>>In particular, archival durability. There are plenty of films from the
>>early single-strip era (1950's) that have deteriorated badly due to
>>the relatively unstable organic dyes that form the image, whereas much
>>older 3-strip Technicolor, stored properly, shows virtually no loss,
>>as the image is a black-and-white one (or three) formed from silver.
>>
>
> Well, they still separate color photos into three printing plates for
> magazine color plate printing, I believe....I knew a girl who did that, and
> she made quite a lot of money at it. (you have to be talented)
>
>

4 colors - CMYK.
September 27, 2005 1:31:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim wrote:

>
> That being said, folks the first color film appeared in the mid 30's..
> Kodachrome (and I believ Agfa had one ot shortl before or after
> Kodachrome. Prior to that colors was produced by various projection
> techniques through filtered B&W film or via the Technicolor dye
> inhibitors process amd multiple strips of film.

Kodachrome and Agfacolor were the first successful integral
tri-pack films, but you seem to be forgetting about additive systems
using a matrix of filters. The first successful system to use
a filter matrix was Lumiere Autochrome in 1907 which used dyed
starch grains. Dufaycolour, which used machine made lines of dye
drawn on Ilford panchromatic film was quite popular in the 1930s.
The last film to use such a system was PolaChrome instant slide
film which was available until quite recently.


Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb.net
September 27, 2005 4:01:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2005-09-19 20:39:04 -0400, "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> said:

>
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127173956.411254.105930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> It's like a time trip.
>>
>> http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/fsac/1a33000/1a33900/...
>> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-8086.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> Russia
>> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
>>
>> US
>> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html
>> http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/index.jsp
>
> I find the 2nd one of a fat bloke in the blue coat unlikely to be
> original. No film in that era was that good. It may have been a slide
> but still a slide that has been scaned and then impressively
> photoshopped.


When one examines the original process, one finds it is B&W film shot
through three color filters. There was no color photographic paper.
The final print would have to been hand colored.


That being said, folks the first color film appeared in the mid 30's..
Kodachrome (and I believ Agfa had one ot shortl before or after
Kodachrome. Prior to that colors was produced by various projection
techniques through filtered B&W film or via the Technicolor dye
inhibitors process amd multiple strips of film.

Jim



--
Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 4:01:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim wrote:

>
>When one examines the original process, one finds it is B&W film shot
>through three color filters. There was no color photographic paper.
>The final print would have to been hand colored.
>

Paper no, but there were 3-color separations using transparencies and
projectors.

Check out the Prokudin-Gorskii exhibit on the Library of Congress web
site.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 1:29:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:01:47 -0400, Jim wrote:

> On 2005-09-19 20:39:04 -0400, "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> said:
/index.jsp
>>
>> I find the 2nd one of a fat bloke in the blue coat unlikely to be
>> original. No film in that era was that good. It may have been a slide
>> but still a slide that has been scaned and then impressively
>> photoshopped.
>
>
> When one examines the original process, one finds it is B&W film shot
> through three color filters. There was no color photographic paper.
> The final print would have to been hand colored.
>
>
> That being said, folks the first color film appeared in the mid 30's..
> Kodachrome (and I believ Agfa had one ot shortl before or after
> Kodachrome. Prior to that colors was produced by various projection
> techniques through filtered B&W film or via the Technicolor dye
> inhibitors process amd multiple strips of film.
>
> Jim
The first colour film (with actual colour) was made with dyed starch
grains (possibly in France) somewhere in the 1920's. Later superceded with
film that had a printed matrix similar to the old Dufaycolor.

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
September 28, 2005 12:35:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim wrote:

> On 2005-09-19 20:39:04 -0400, "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> said:
>
>>
>> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1127173956.411254.105930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> It's like a time trip.
>>>
>>> http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/fsac/1a33000/1a33900/...
>>> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-8086.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Russia
>>> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
>>>
>>> US
>>> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html
>>> http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/index.jsp
>>
>>
>> I find the 2nd one of a fat bloke in the blue coat unlikely to be
>> original. No film in that era was that good. It may have been a slide
>> but still a slide that has been scaned and then impressively
>> photoshopped.
>
>
>
> When one examines the original process, one finds it is B&W film shot
> through three color filters. There was no color photographic paper.
> The final print would have to been hand colored.
>
>
> That being said, folks the first color film appeared in the mid 30's..

Autochrome, patented in the US in 1906.

The LumiƩre brothers had developed the process earlier in France.

http://www.bway.net/~jscruggs/auto.html#was

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/autochrome.html

http://www.awm.gov.au/captured/colour/autochrome.asp
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 1:36:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Neil Ellwood <carl.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> writes:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:29:31 -0400, westin wrote:
>
>> In particular, archival durability. There are plenty of films from the
>> early single-strip era (1950's) that have deteriorated badly due to
>> the relatively unstable organic dyes that form the image, whereas much
>> older 3-strip Technicolor, stored properly, shows virtually no loss,
>> as the image is a black-and-white one (or three) formed from silver.

> The negative is silver but the positive print is a variation of the
> tri-chrome-carbro process. The positve is printed (on the special pos.
> film stock), then the silver image is bleached out with a hardening bleach
> and the non hardened parts washed away leaving the coloured image.

Right. Perhaps I should have been specific that the *negative* is
more permanent than a single-strip negative.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
!