Dynachrome Color Print Film Debuts

In their May 1968 issue US Camera magazine looks at this new film.

 

 

Dynachrome 1 sm 2

Modern Photography magazine looks at those free film offers to see if they are worth while.

 

 

Free Film 1 sm 2

Arthur Kramer gives an in-depth look at buying a view camera.

 

 

Buy a View Camera 1 sm 2

Here are some news items.

 

 

News 1 sm 2

Ed Scully asks, which color film for what subject?

 

 

Which Color Film 1 sm 2

Augustus Wolfman tests some enlargers.

 

 

Wolfman 1 sm 2

Here is this month's Coffee Break column.

 

 

CB 1 sm 2

The Behind the Scenes column shows you how to get your High Speed Ektachrome film pushed processed.

 

 

BTS 1 sm 2

Here are this month's camera equipment ads.

 

 

Beseler 1 sm 2

Keppler looks at the National Geographic magazine.

 

 

Keppler 1 sm 2

Here are this month's Modern Tests.

 

 

MT 1 sm 2

Here are this month's dealer ads.

 

 

Cambridge 1 sm 2

It's almost like having Keppler and Modern back again.

 

I suppose Dynachrome slide film has to be a hopeful reminder that someone other than Kodak was able to make a Kodachrome-like film, but I suspect the poisonous chemicals involved alone would make that impossible today. I'd completely forgot that they (3M) made a print film too.

Another great post, Marc, thanks!

 

Dynachrome - this happened a few years after 3M bought Ferrania. There is so much leeway in making prints from color negatives that one wonders about the comments on color tones, which would of course be most appropiate about slide film. 3M C-41 film was quite popular in my area in the late 70s.

 

The view camera article is impressive. I have never shot anything above 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 (6 x 9 in metric), so can only appreciate the mechanical beauty and flexibility of these beasts.

 

Keppler looks at National Geographic Magazine, specifically to Blair pictures on Czechoslovakia, which must have been well timed to the Prague Spring. If you are a subscriber, there is an Archive and maybe the piece can be recovered and enjoyed along with Keppler's comments.

 

What a waste of development effort, all those nice 126 SLRs. Exakta was fighting gallantly but already in the bottom of the price list.

Great series, as always. The local Woolco used to carry Dynachrome slide film but never had the print film. I remember the Dynachrome ads read something like "the film's so good you'll forget it costs less." Not an exact quote, but the general idea.

Back around 1970 or so I tried the Triple Print free film offer. While the 4x4 prints from 126 were a nice size, the color wasn't nearly as good as what Kodacolor-X could deliver.

Thanks for sharing.

I used Seattle Filmworks, one of those "free film" dealers, for awhile. I never liked the film. It was grainy and fairly slow, with an odd color cast. But, the convenience was very enticing. "Free" mailers, which were factored into the cost, of course, and a new roll of film returned with each batch of processed photos made it soooo simple.

My father and I both shot some Dynachrome slides back in the 60's, and some of the results were quite good. Unfortunately, not all processors realized it was a Kodachrome chemistry, and so there was a pretty good chance it would come back developed with an E process instead. And needless to say, then, the result was horrible.

 

I never tried the print film. Unfamiliar with the chemistry at the time, I blamed Dynachrome for the uneven results, and rarely shot color back then anyway. For a brief period I shot some Kodachrome, which I got with the mailers, and those pictures nearly 50 years later are still pretty today. Well, the colors are. The photography sucks but we don't talk about that.

Whole different story with Seattle Filmworks and similar as they sold motion picture film (either "short ends" or from stock). Often the film was tungsten balanced so a filter was needed for daylight. Even with the filter it wasn't that great. Although the prospect of getting slides and negatives might seem attractive it's likely much better results could be had by getting slides made from one's Kodacolor negatives. I think Kodak had an Ektacolor stock for printing slides since the mid 1950's. I actually had some Kodacolor 400 negatives printed onto slide material in the early 80's and they were quite nice.

Whole different story with Seattle Filmworks and similar as they sold motion picture film (either "short ends" or from stock). Often the film was tungsten balanced so a filter was needed for daylight. Even with the filter it wasn't that great. Although the prospect of getting slides and negatives might seem attractive it's likely much better results could be had by getting slides made from one's Kodacolor negatives. I think Kodak had an Ektacolor stock for printing slides since the mid 1950's. I actually had some Kodacolor 400 negatives printed onto slide material in the early 80's and they were quite nice.

 

It used to be believe that you didn't need a filter with negative film, as the color could be corrected in printing. As you note, that isn't really true.

 

As far as I know, Seattle Film Works didn't suggest a filter, though 5247 is tungsten balanced.

Regarding 5247 and similar films, in later years Clark Color Labs would actually process this film (obviously just develop and print with no slides) and without the "free replacement roll". And yes, correcting color with the tungsten film didn't deliver the quality that most came to expect from daylight color film. Surprisingly (and this was before my time) Kodak recommended early Kodacolor be exposed without a filter under tungsten lights or clear flashbulbs. Claimed correction during printing. Don't know how effective it actually was.