Back in the 1950s, how did you make a print from a color slide?

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I have no knowledge of photography, but I have been given the task of scanning some old Kodachrome transparencies (slides). A big issue has arisen as to when exactly some of the slides were photographed.<br>

So back in the year 1959 or 1960, if you took a stack of Kodachrome slides to a processing lab, how did they make some color prints on paper (say 3 X 5 - inches)? <br>

What I really need to know is this: Was it common practice for the processing labs to rip open the cardboard slide mounts and remove the little strip of film to make a color print on paper? (If they did that, then it totally changes the dynamic of the question as to when some of our family photos were actually made.)<br>

What can you tell me about the late 1950s or early 1960s regarding the methods used to make color prints on photo paper?<br>

Warm Regards,<br>

Joe</p>

 

<p>Usually 3 'seperation negatives' were made on B&W film through cyan, magenta and yellow filters.<br>

Then printed to colour paper by the 'subtractive colour' process.<br>

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_photography<br>

Please correct me if I am wrong.<br>

Best regards,<br>

/Clay</p>

<p>It was possible to do but generally people viewed their slides by projection.<br>

If I had to do it now I would use a slide copying attachment to make a negative then print it normally.</p>

<p>Usually an inter-negative was made of the slide onto negative film. Kodak made a special stock for this purpose which reduces the contrast associated with Kodachrome. This inteneg could be made by enlarger, slide duplicator or contact printed.<br /> The separation negatives which each colour layer was printed onto a separate panchormatic film is used in the dye transfer printing process. This is the highest and most stable print from a photographic image. These film layers were printed from either a colour negative or a colour slide and the colour dyes are then transferred to the paper via these film in layers, kind of like colour offset printing.<br /> Due to the cost involve it was not the common method of making prints from slides. It was used for exhibition display quality fine art prints.</p>

Back in the 1950s no one would take a stack of slides to a lab to have prints made unless they also took a big stack of money along. Making the internegative via slide copier or enlarger would not involve removing the cardboard mount. Contact printing would usually only be done with large format sheet film.

 

What makes you think the cardboard mounts were removed?

<p>Kodak made prints back then and called them "kodachrome prints"; thats how the ones in my family from that era were labeled</p>

I tried putting slides in an enlarger, projecting on a Polaroid magazine, putting the magazine in a camera, and then pulling the print through the rollers. It worked well the first time, then was unable to duplicate the process well.

<p>Mr. Baker.....</p>

<p>In the '40s and '50s, many major camera stores, national outfits like Montgomery Wards and Sears, as well as Kodak itself, made direct prints from slides. The paper used was reversal paper that would not create a negative from a negative to make a positive, but would create a positive directly from a positive. Ansco/Agfa also made a kit that could be used at home and was sometimes used by smaller camera shops called Printon, which consisted of positive paper and the chemicals to develop the paper, and even had a small special purpose enlarger that worked with the Printon system. You could also use a regular B&W enlarger with special Printon filters to expose the paper for your home Printon processing. </p>

<p>The transparency material could be used both in the slide mount and outside the slide mount, depending on what type of film holder one used to do the enlarging. Of course, the print would only be made from a mounted slide from that which was visible through the center of the mount. The same holds true today when you take film to a local full-service camera shop. Most of the mass production photo printers used in those shops will take the slide, mounted or unmounted, and adjust what is shown on the print accordingly. </p>

<p>Until recently, both Kodak and Fuji made an "R" paper that either small camera shops or home darkroom enthusiasts could use to make direct prints from positive film. Of course, with a proper enlarger, you could make prints with positive film from in sizes from Minox to 8X10 field cameras. Paper and chemicals from these sources became unavailable within the last 10 years due to a combination of lowered demand and environmental concerns. </p>

<p>Today there are specialist printers that still use my favorite positive printing process, Ilfochrome, formerly Cibachrome. The paper is so high resolution and "crisp" that it certainly shows up soft slides or average enlarging lenses. If done properly, with proper filtration, prints from that process are the closest I've seen to looking like a projected slide. They also are extremely fade resistent and long lasting. Mr. Lawton mentioned above the three-color separation printing process once referred to as Carbo prints. These were popular amongst the well-to-do who could afford them in the '30s, '40s and '50s. They were far more stable and long lasting than any of the other printing processes of their day, be it negative or direct positive printing. They had much smoother tones and were less crisp than Cibachrome, and so well suited to flatter someone whose wrinkles and skin blemishes were the wounds of becoming wealthy enough to buy Carbo prints. The skill of the Carbo printer was extremely important. The three gel dye levels of color were placed one on top of another on paper. You can imagine how important registration (lining the layers up properly) would be. </p>

<p>Back when photography was generally a more skilled endeavor, Carbo color prints were also made from three B&W negatives, exposed in a special camera that contained prisms and filters behind the lens to direct light on three different negatives. This was done long before the high definition Kodachrome color film was made available in the late '30s. </p>

<p>Now for the short answer. If you live in a town large enough to support a full-service camera store, they may well be able to use their Fuji or Noritsu printer to direct print off of your mounted slides. These stores normally charge the same fee as they would a reprint of equal size from a negative. The machines they use all print digitally anyway and all of the film, whether negative or positive, is scanned. I'll bet less than one out of 1000 camera stores still print their mass production through glass. The electronic print still goes onto silver halide paper, so most consumers never notice the transition. You, being relatively new to photography, would never know the difference. I think you'll be pleased with the results if the camera shop is even halfway decent in their skill level. </p>

<p>That was more news than was fit to print,</p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

<p>I remember slide copying bellows attachments for cameras that allowed for simple 36mm negatives to be made. It was the simplest way of getting it done.<br>

I remember at least 2 local camera shops doing t that way.</p>

<p>In the '70s when I was in school I worked at the various Camera Barn stores in NY during the summer. At that time Kodak, at its Rochester lab, would make 6X9 internegatives from 35mm slides if you wanted to pay the price. This was custom lab quality work at a very reasonable price. If you didn't request this, the lab would make a 35mm size internegative and use that to make your print. The internegative was discarded at the lab. One customer accidentally got the internegative back from the lab. It was a single 35mm color negative with perforations only on one side. The customer attempted to have additional prints made from the internegative, at the print-from-negatives price. He did not succeed. Kodak kept the internegative (I'm sure they discarded it) and sent a note to the customer letting him know it was sent to him in error.<br>

I liked the more vivid look of Type R prints but the high contrast made them unsuitable for certain subjects. A contrast mask could be made for a price. The control over contrast that we now have with scanning and PP is much better.</p>

<p>Thanks everybody for your help. I don't think any internegatives were made. It looks like the slides were projected and then somebody snapped a photo of the projected image, and then processed the print film. The prints are not of high quality. None of them have any Kodak printing on the paper, so they weren't done by a Kodak lab using expensive Kodak methods. I thought the slide mounts may have been pulled open, because two of them look like they were reglued, but just two of them. All in all, it looks like the job was done by the cheapest, quickest method possible and that was with the use of a projector and a camera with color print film.<br>

No big deal though, as it was just a question as to whether a set of slides were made on somebody's birthday or about a week later. Anyway, it was over a half century ago, so it's all in the distant past and not a really important question anymore (at least by the person who is in the photos!).<br>

Thank you once again for your reply.<br>

Joe</p>