1950s film formats

I'm a very new collector of 1950s b&w photography, and I'm trying to learn

something about the film of that era. Almost all of what I have was printed in a

4" x 5" format, but examining a set of negatives (supposedly from the '50s) the

format has confused me: I was expecting to see 4:5 images on the negatives, but

they're 4:6 (24x36 mm). Was it was the practice to produce 4x5 images from 4:6

negatives?

 

The only info I see on the negatives are Eastman Kodak, Panchromatic, and Safety

Film.

 

Thanks.

4x5 prints are probably contact prints from 4x5 large format sheet film, the predominant

size of professionally used film at the time.

Thanks. Am I correct to conclude that negatives in a 4:6 ratio *can* be dated to the 1950s, but that they were more likely taken by an amateur than a professional?

Most formats for printing 35mm film have required cropping the long ends of the picture, few paper formats are in the 2:3 ratio required.

 

3-1/2 by 5 prints (Kodak called this 3R size) were the common size for machine made prints from 35mm film, until 4x6 took over about 15-20 years ago. The former size required cropping.

 

In the 1950's, there was no 4x6 paper size, but there was a 4x5 paper size. So that's what you printed on if you wanted "4R" prints.

 

However, realize that in the 1950's, most snap-shooters still shot "roll" film, not 35mm film. The 35mm cameras were expensive, for advanced amateurs. Kodak had only just stopped making 616 size cameras, but that film size (and 116) were still popular, with a 2.5 x 4.5 inch negative. The even larger 122 size (3.25 by 5.5 inch negative) was fading, but available until 1973. 127 in many image formats (4x3 cm, 4x4 cm, and 4x6 cm) remained VERY popular, and 120 and 620 were still popular. The film was mostly Verichrome or Verichrome Pan (both B&W) after 1955, and a little Kodacolor.

 

In this era, Kodakcolor prints were 2-7/8 high, and their length was chosen to match the frame format of the negative -- no cropping.

 

Lots of B&W prints were still contact prints, Velox paper was made in a great number of sizes, one for each common film format with a white margin. It was only 127 and smaller negatives that got enlarged. So you will find that many period prints are on 3x5 inch paper contact printed from a 116/616 negative with 1/4 inch margins. (That's why 116 and 616 were so popular, it was the smallest negative that gave a decent-sized contact print.) The increasing prevalence of enlarging is what did in the 122 film format in 1973, and the 116 and 616 film formats in about 1980.

The size of 135 film (24x36mm) was originally 'double frame' since the motion picture film on which the format was based made a single frame exposure that was half the size and went from sprocket to sprocket for a horizontal frame. This format dates from the advent of the Leica (and a few others) in the late 20s. It runs from the 20s up to the death of film as the dominant medium in the early 21st century. The ratio (24:36) of 35mm film never made sense except in this historical setting. Thus printing habitually cropped the negative in one way or another. I vaguely recall some efforts from time to time to produce print formats that would make fuller use of the full frame, but these all came to naught. Few of the 'traditional' photographic print formats are especially pleasing and photographic prints have often not conformed to the "golden mean" or "ratio" (which see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio ) of classical art.

 

As pointed out already, 4x5" (actually not quite that) was the typical film format used by photojournalists in the 1930s to the late 50s. Hence the stereotype of the photojournalist as a cigar-chomping retrobate in a beat-up fedora and holding a Crown or Speed Graphic 4x5 camera.

And, of course, some camera manufacturers like the early post WWII Nikon tried to make what they felt to be more rational film sizes, but found this was resisted by 35mm photographers.

The 1950s probably had the greatest variety of film sizes available, and in use, than any other period of photography.

 

Press photographers were regularly using 6x6cm Rolleiflexes, 35mm cameras and less often 5"x4". Wedding photographers were using 6x6cm and 5"x4". Portrait, society and studio photographers were using everything from 6x6cm to 10"x8". While other professionals and serious amateurs also used 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x9cm, quarter plate (3.25" x 4.25"), 5"x4", half-plate (4.25"x6.5"), whole-plate (6.5"x8.5") and 10"x8".

 

5"x7" and 10x12cm were, and still are, also available, but slightly less popular.

 

Most larger film sizes were available as both cut-film and glass plate at that time. Not to mention all the various snapshot rollfilm sizes available: 127, 828, 120, 620 to name just a few, plus various other pre-war spool sizes up to 3" wide or more.

 

Then we have the less-well-used sizes like the 16mm Minox and the popular "Mycro" toy camera that was introduced about the end of the 1950s, as well as a few cameras that took 32x24mm negatives on 35mm film. Polaroid cameras were also quite popular during this time, as were "banquet" cameras taking panoramic images.

 

So, just because the prints are 5x4 inches, that means nothing. They may be contact prints from 5x4 negatives, but could just as easily be enlargements from any of the smaller sizes. IMHO, it's much more likely that your prints are "enprint" enlargements than contact prints.

 

The strange thing is, that although there was such a variety of film formats around, printing paper tended to only be available in sizes that had a 5:4 ratio or very close to it. In fact it's only comparatively recently that the "standard" enprint sizes have been altered to accomodate the ubiquitous 36x24mm negative. Now that will have to change again to suit the common 4:3 digital format.

Our perceptions of standard print sizes continues to be influenced by large format negatives that were contact printed: 8x10, 4x5, 5x7. Even when larger printing paper sizes were offered they were still typically geared toward the large format paradigm, such as 16x20.

 

Fortunately, the oddball sizes - from the perspective of a 35mm photographer - gave us plenty of scraps for making test prints.

 

Occasionally paper manufacturers gave us sizes that required little or no cropping of the typical 35mm negative. But even today's digital photography continues to be blindly influenced by large format paradigms. (And I don't even wanna get off into that "Golden Mean" debate.)

 

I really miss the ready-made square sheets for contact printing medium format negatives. That's how I got started when I was something like 9 years old, contact printing my own Brownie negs. Remember those scallop-edged prints on heavy fiber paper? Some of 'em even had pre-printed inked margins.

 

If you dig around you'll even find some fun stuff like circular formats for early glass plate cameras! A year or so ago a fellow e-mailed me some scans of prints he'd made from what were then considered "miniature" circular glass plate negatives. Despite what must have been slow shutter speeds for a handheld camera (the camera had no provision for tripod mounting), the photos were amazingly sharp with a sense of immediacy that made the 100+ year old subject matter seem new.

John Shriver, without going into great detail agrees with my memories.

I was 15 in 1950. and already walking aroiund with a camera most of the time.

 

Kodak more or less standardized in 3 1/2 wide color paper.

Many of the cameras then or later took 12- 6 x 6 (3 1/2" x 3 1/2") photois.

this was one of the most common formats. 127, 12 exp 1 5/8" x 1 5/8" 4x4 cm or 8 exp in 127 film 1 5/8 x 2 1/4" both were fairly populat. these were normally enlarged to 3 1/.2" square or 3 1/2 wide and proportionately long..

people knew little or cared less about the film size, many tossed the negatives. just kept the prints they " got back".

35mm was for kodachrome slides almots entirely.

35mm color print film was not available in 1950-58?

 

I have both a Ganz 4 x 5 and a 4 x 6 speed ezl.

I never saw 4 x 6 paper. the easel alone was quite rare.

 

I was working at Englehard as a metallagraphic tech.

the Boss saw me carrying IN a small black envelope with cut enlarging paper either 3 1/2 x 5 or 4 x 6.

 

he thought I was nuts. he bacame irate and flung open several drawers and ordered me to cut up one or two 250 sheet boxes of 8 1/2 x 11 kodak enlarging paper.( not 8 x 10 typically they put the photos as reports in a binder) and print my own negs "after the day's work was complete" My wife went over the contact sheets and selected which to print. those were the days.

Thanks for all the information. It seems safe to say that 4:6 (24x36mm) negatives are not at all unusual for the 1950s, and that such negatives would have been, in essence, automatically cropped in the printing process simply because the paper came in 4x5 proportions. That certainly seems to suggest that a photographer would have needed to take extra care with composition, and looking at my 4x6 prints I'd have to say it appears there is a pattern of "extra" space at one side of the frame -- my uneducated opinion is that whoever took these photos had some idea of what he was doing.

There was a folding camera using 116 or larger roll film called "Autographic" that had had a little door in the back and came with a metal stylus. One could open the door and write a caption with the stylus. Th pressure of the stylus exposed the film through the paper backing so the message appeared when the film was developed. The message would appear white on the print. That was one reason for some of the long, narrow pictures.

 

I was 23 in 1950. I don't think anything smaller than 4x5 inches was accepted for newspaper work yet. That cigar chomping reprobate was real, named Weegee. Don't remember his real name.

Hi Art,

 

I started shooting for money in 1947 when I was 16 years old. I was a regular shooter from '48 on and writer from 49 on (that means that I made a little money got lots of credits but was in the navy for 9 years including my first NYC period) .

 

I was a photographer in NY in the '50's. The most common films for sheet film were 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, 3 1/4 x 4 1/4, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, and occasionally 16x20.

 

My personal favorites were Adox KB14, R17, R21, Kodak Panatomic X, Plus X, Super XX (after 1954 Tri X). The favorite for Press and Portait was Ansco Super Panchro Press. I vaguely remember during the earlier period, Kodak made a Tri X sheet film at ASA 160, not very good, but adequate. Through the 50's, Du Pont and Haloid/Xerox made film and paper. The films weren't well received but government purchasing kept them alive for a time. DuPont's Velour Black and Varigam (originally Defender was their name) and those were the favorite of all b/w papers, Ansel Adams favorite until they stoped making it was Velour Balck.

 

There were some great films that didn't last, my favorite was Perutz Perpantic (100 and 400), Gevaert 30, Gevapan Dandipan, a couple of excellent Agfa products such as ISS. In the 60's Gevaert (Belgium) and Agfa merged, their distribution was terrible except for their graphic arts products and so they were never competitive.

 

Ansco was the most important supplier of professional photo products until the 1960's, representing 89% of the film, paper, and chemical business for professional users.

 

I've used up my memory circuits for the time being,

 

Lynn