Older emulsions..

[edgar_njari]

Can someone tell me, what professional films were popular in

70's and 80's (both slide and negative, both Fuji and Kodak)

in professional photography, like fashion, portraits, weddings etc.

 

thank you

[rowland_mowrey]

Edgar;

 

Kodacolor X and Ektacolor S and L were the last C22 films used in the early 70s. They were the amateur and professional negative films. They were replaced with Kodacolor II and Vericolor S and L films. These were the first C41 color negative films. Also in the 70s was Kodacolor 400. Kodacolor Gold 400 came out in the 80s for the amateur along with Vericolor II and III for the professional.

 

Ektachrome was still using E4 processing into the late 70s, and there was Ektachrome X and HS Ektachrome. The current family of E6 films did not appear until the late 70s early 80s. There was also Ektachrome 200.

 

I have samples of most of those films stored away here.

 

Fuji films were virtually unknown here until the 80s, and were simply called Fujichrome. The Velvia and other Fuji names did not appear until the 90s. Most foreign color films in the 70s and 80s were from Agfa. We also had Agfa and Oriental color papers available.

 

As for B&W, we used Panatomic X, Plus X pan, Super XX, and Tri X pan. I have boxes of these in 35mm, 120 and sheet as well and am still using 4x5 sheets of Super XX in D76 from 1984. Royal X pan came out near the end of the 80s. I have some of it as well, but it is rather foggy.

 

Ilford films and papers were in common use during this era as well, but I don't remember their types. After all, during this period, I got all the free Kodak film I could eat.

 

The big difference in professional vs consumer films appeared to be in the negative film line between the Kodacolor and Ektacolor names and lines. There was not as big a distinction in the Ektachrome and B&W lines.

 

OTOH, many people considered Kodachrome films to be the professional reversal film and Ektachrome the amateur film. Kodachrome was available in sheet and 120 film sizes then. (I have a box of 5x7 Kodachrome as well, but alas it is empty).

 

The Kodachrome family was at one time merely marked Kodachrome, with a speed rating appended, Ie Kodachrome, Kodachrome 25, Kodachrome 64, and Ektachrome followed this at first with Ektachrome 100 and Ektachrome 200. HS Ektachrome and Ektachrome X did not have the speed ratings in the name oviously. Also, at one time, HS Ektachrome was 160 speed and then was uprated to 400 in a later incarnation IIRC. I can remember using it in the 60s as 160 speed and in the 70s and 80s as 400 speed under the same name. All of the boxes I have in that name are rated 400.

 

Hopes this helps you a little in your quest.

 

Ron Mowrey

[mdanger]

Edgar, I just went into my darkroom and pulled out a box of negs from 1975-76. It seems I shot Kodak 2475 Recording Film developed in Ethol UFG (as I recall we used this film for "pushing"); and in Ilford, I used FP4 and HP4 and HP5, no developing details. I think HP5 slowly replaced HP4. They still look great and I think I'll print some of those again! I shot a lot of slides in the 70's (when I was without a darkroom) and I loved Kodachrome. That Simon & Garfunkle song about Kodachrome always pops in my head when I remember that era. Mary

[richard_cochran]

For professional publication (magazines, print, etc.),

Kodachrome dominated color photography, especially

in 35mm. National Geographic must have used miles

of it. The color negative films were used in portrait

studios and wedding photography.

<p>

Verichrome Pan was a very popular portrait film in 120 B&W.

Otherwise, it was Panatomic-X, Plus-X, and Tri-X, in all sizes.

[edgar_njari]

Thanks everyone..

 

Rowland (or others).. I have 4 questions:

 

1.What was the difference between S and L vericolor (ektacolor)

and was the later Vericolor II and III more similar to S or L?

 

2.Allso what was the difference between Ektachrome X and HS.

I suspect that HS stands for high saturation or something like that,

is that right?

 

3. Was there any visible change in the "look" of the photography

with the changeover from E4 to E6, and from C22 to C41?

 

4. Was Kodachrome used for fashion magazines too?

 

oh and one add on question:

Does anyone know the years Ektacolor S and L and Vericolor S,L, II and III films came out?

 

thank you again

[john_shriver]

The Ektacolor S versus L distinction is short versus long exposure time. They adjusted the emulsions in the L versions for long exposures (1/30 and longer), so that recipcrocity errors didn't lead to color balance errors. The L version would get used in product photography with long bellows draw, small f-stops, etc. Vericolor also came in S and L versions. Kodak doesn't seem to have any of the L films any more, although it looks like the Tungsten-balanced Ektachromes are also tuned for longer exposures.

 

In Ektachrome, HS is shorthand for "High Speed Ektachrome". A stunning ASA speed of 160 (for it's day), and Kodak would gladly push it a stop for an extra price. It was THE fastest Kodak color film when it came out. It was known as "High Speed Grainachrome" in the circles I traveled in. It didn't have the color punch of Kodachrome 64, and the shadows weren't very dark, and the shadows tended to get color casts when pushed. But I recently looked at slides I took with it in the 1970's, and they looked quite OK. It worked surprisingly well outside in full sun.

 

Ektachrome-X was ASA 64. A cold and less saturated film compared to Kodachrome-II, Kodachrome 25, or Kodachrome 64.

 

The change in "look" in Ektachrome was the E-3 to E-4 transition. E-6 differs mostly in that the film is hardened at manufacture, instead of at processing time. You can process E-4 films in an E-6 process if you add a chemical hardening step. The most important change in E-4 was that the resulting images were dramatically more stable, the earlier films had severe dye fading problems. E-3 Ektachromes will turn pink with anything less than perfect storage, very cold storage is required for preventing total loss.

 

One major motivation in all three of the 1970's process changes (K-12 to K-14, E-4 to E-6, C-22 to C-41) was to make them more environmentally friendly. (The EPA had very strong opinions about K-12!) I suspect that the C-41 is the one that has offered the most change in the quality of the results -- for the better.

 

Except for Kodachrome, color films have improved a great deal since the 1970's. The only additive change in Kodachrome (after the K-14 transition) as the addition of Kodachrome 200, a lovely if grainy film. (As Rowland has noted, Kodachrome could have improved a lot as well, the R&D was done, but they decided the market wouldn't return their investment. The high-volume transparency film users need the fast turnaround of E-6.)

[edgar_njari]

Thank you..

 

Does anyone know the answer to the forth question or the question about years when these films came out?

 

And I have aditional question:

 

What would be the closest match in saturation, contrast and color balance today to these vericolor films? (or in other words, were

they high contrast or low, high saturation or low, warmer or colder etc.)?

[rowland_mowrey]

Edgar;

 

I have a few nits to pick.

 

E3 and E4 films were closer together than E4 and E6. E3 and E4 still required Benzyl Alcohol to form dyes properly, but E6 does not. Also, the MQ developers of E3 and E4 were very similar, but E6 is not.

 

HS Ektachrome apparently came in a 160 and then a 400 speed. I have seen both in trade dress. It was used by National Geographic for a lot of shots when high speed was needed, and was often cross processed in C22 for very good high speed results. The 160 version was pushed as high as 400 to give a negative.

 

The C41 process came out in ~1971. I have seen a mix of C22 and C41 products during the period from 1971 to about 1973, due to expiration dates on products already released. Ektacolor 70 paper and C41 films were developed in tandem to come out within a year of each other.

 

The E6 process was released several years later, as was the Kodachrome process.

 

The aim of the C41 films and process was to make a large step forward in speed, sharpness and grain possible, with better color reproduction than the C22 process. It was impossible to do in the C22 developer and with the then current couplers. That resulted in the C41 developer and the 100 degree process.

 

The 'tail end' chemistry was redesigned in all processes due to environmental considerations.

 

Kodachrome, and reversal film in general is considered high contrast and not accurate for color reproduction. It is used in the printing industry because there are fewer overall steps required in the chain from the original to the printed page, and the magazines etc can add color masking and contrast masking.

 

Any photographer who could meet those goals could use transparency film, otherwise they would use negative film. Many studios used negative film and then duped them to make transparencies for publication or other distribution.

 

You will see this fact largely ignored here on PN, or even disputed, but it is the case that most any kind of film can be used in any situation, even with Nat Geog.

 

Hope this answers most of your questions.

 

Ron Mowrey

[edgar_njari]

Yes it does, thanks, thanks to everyone else

[lex_jenkins]

About all I can contribute to this thread is that I can remember first seeing Fuji films during the early 1970s at some shops in NYC. It's a vivid memory because my buddy and I were young teenagers, had just gotten our own SLRs and prowled the city fairly often. The first time we saw the bright green box we were kinda dumbstruck.

 

I definitely recall the slide film being labeled Fujichrome but don't recall any other info such as alphanumeric designations distinguishing variations of their slide films; and I *think* I recall something called Fujicolor negative film, but wouldn't have paid much attention to that.

 

As I recall we were actually intimidated by the green boxes and didn't try the stuff until someone (either a shop owner or one of the photo magazines) officially pronounced it "OK".

 

I may have tried a roll or two but I stuck with Kodachrome 25 whenever possible if I wanted color; mostly Tri-X the rest of the time because I could afford it; and never shot color negative film unless absolutely forced to by a relative during holidays. So I remember a couple of variations of Kodacolor, but not fondly. Using it made me feel like a schmuck family shutterbug when I was trying to convey the impression of being a very serious fellow.

 

The first time I voluntarily used Vericolor was during a marathon bicycling tour through Baja California. I figured the rest of the folks in the cycling club would enjoy having pix to pass around and copies could be made. I wanted to use a "pro" film. Unfortunately the film didn't hold up well under the searing heat and the prints were irretrievably orangey. Kodachrome typically help up better under such extremes.

 

The last rolls of Vericolor I ever saw were orphaned in one of those everything-for-a-dollar stores. The film was long expired but I bought up what they had anyway. The results turned out quite pleasant, lending a slightly warm, healthy pinkish glow to photos of people. The color was far from accurate but the people I photographed loved the pix.

[reuben_c]

<i>The Ektacolor S versus L distinction is short versus long exposure time. They adjusted the emulsions in the L versions for long exposures (1/30 and longer), so that recipcrocity errors didn't lead to color balance errors. The L version would get used in product photography with long bellows draw, small f-stops, etc. Vericolor also came in S and L versions. </i>

<p>

One other thing -- the "Type L" emulsions were tungsten balanced (3200K), and the "Type-S" were daylight/strobe balanced.

[rowland_mowrey]

I forgot to mention that there was also a short lived Kodacolor CU film (for color universal) which was essentially a consumer film with a balance half way between tungsten and daylight. I believe that it was C22 film.

 

It was a dismal failure as it made poor prints under either illumination.

 

Ron Mowrey

[patti_larsen]

Does anyone have a technical data sheet for the Royal-X Pan film? I'm looking for the

spectral response curve.

[john_shriver]

From Kodak Black-and-White Films in Rolls, AF-13, First 1969 printing.<div></div>