Philip Lorca Dicorcia

Hi, anyone know what film this man used in his 70's and 80's work?

We can probably narow it down already to some Ektachrome, Fujichrome

or Vericolor/Kodacolor , but which of these (was he a

reversal-shooter or did he used negatives? )

I think the only guy who was using color negative back then was Meyerowitz. You could probably find Philip through Pace-Magill in NYC. Pretend you have a ton of money... t

A few questions about that:

 

How much was Kodachrome used in 120 in those days? So far all the Kodachrome books I've seen from that time were from 35mm slides.

 

As you are suggesting, most photographers of that sort used reversal film then. Did anyone of famous photographers use Fujichrome, or was Ektachrome mostly used?

I'm pretty sure that Kodachrome was never made available in 120, although I could be wrong there. I thought it was only made in 35mm and some sheet film sizes. In the 'seventies, Ektachrome was the material of choice for 120 reversal, the Japanese materials coming in to general use, if I remember correctly, at the end of the 'eighties. Of course, I'm writing from a British perspective and the American scene could have been quite different.

Hang on, a thought just occurred to me. Wasn't there a short lived experiment with 120 Kodachrome in the late 'eighties as well? I have vague memories of some magazine articles about it but so far as I recall it was never very popular - in Britain at least.

Yes Kodachrome was 120 in the 80s. Elliot Porter used the sheet film decades earlier. I know Ernst Haas used Kodachrome when it's iso was something like 10... yep ten. He became the master of blurry and multiple exposures out of necessity, true creative thinking. <p>"<i>Did anyone of famous photographers use Fujichrome, or was Ektachrome mostly used?</i>

" Unless you're a photo historian, I can't see how this is a relevant question. You can't get that film stock now, and if you could you couldn't easily process it (it was E4 then, not E6 as now). Find a film currently available that you like, and learn it's capabilities before they quit making it all together. Or learn how to replicate the look of vintage work you like by using digital post processing. Which ever, you need to work with what's available to you now, not what Eggleston was using in 1976... t<div></div>

"Unless you're a photo historian, I can't see how this is a relevant question. You can't get that film stock now, and if you could you couldn't easily process it (it was E4 then, not E6 as now). Find a film currently available that you like, and learn it's capabilities before they quit making it all together. Or learn how to replicate the look of vintage work you like by using digital post processing. Which ever, you need to work with what's available to you now, not what Eggleston was using in 1976.."

 

I'm not trying to replicate anything. I just want to know it for no reasons. Is that so strange? Didn't you ever want to know the specs of your favorite 70's car that's not made anymore or whatever?

ah. Curiosity. It's a good thing. Makes you better company. So you kinda <i>do</i> fit that "historian" thing, huh?... t<div></div>

Well, I'm not a historian, but I do have that interest in me when it comes to photography, I like the technical history of movies and photography, aincient processes, old discontinued films, and vintage stuff, and when I look at such a book full of old catchy looking images, I like to know what I'm looking at, because these are more than just images to me, they are reproductions of film frames, and I like films beyond just using them for my own purpuse, I like the variety of films and like to examine the characteristics of old emulsions.

It's all fun and pleasure.

 

And when it comes to my own stuff, well I'm satisfied with the films I use.

This thread was simply like asking what technique did the artists use when looking at the painting (oil, watercolor etc.)

 

But you did remind of one thing worth mentioning here.

There is one emulsion today which comes from that time, and has remained unchanged (exept for some changes to the base) since 1976 accoarding to Kodak, and that's EPR.

Those are some grea Kodachrome images you got there. That looks so much different than today's Kodachrome 64. They kind of live up to the idea (which is today only a myth for K64) that Kodachrome is a saturated emulsion.