DMGill Loc: Colorado

In the early 50's my father was shooting 16mm color movies of our family. In the early 70's I was the in-house photographer for a real estate company and was shooting a lot of color positive film. It was more available then than it is now.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

That's all good. What I meant about the officers is the inevitable, "Soldier, why are you filming the firefight instead of firing that weapon?" question. It's one thing if the army assigns you to document a battle, but quite another if you were ordered to fight it. Somehow, I don't think Lt. Calley would have let anyone who filmed the atrocities at My Lai in Viet Nam get out with that film... the massacre would have been revealed earlier, had there been any surviving photographic documentation.

Processing really was key to the scarcity of color from WWII. Kodachrome was a *very* complex process that involved removing a jet-black carbon backing from the film before it was processed, and "selective re-exposure" to red and blue light during development. Equipment was highly specialized. Temperature control was critical. Some variations of the process ran for over an hour and a half. The Kodak guys I knew recommended ± about 1/4°F, and that is hard to maintain anywhere, let alone in a war zone. Significant lab volume was required to keep the process economically viable, which is why it died. There are rumors of its rebirth, but...

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

I thought that the original film took place before the 70's. So color film in the movie would have not faired well for documentary stuff unless you as a pro got a fat check for doing color. Sorry but my memory seems to find the original film as being in the 40's or 50's or maybe earlier. In movies they try to keep all of the props and story line in the time the story line says it happened. The original movie was shot in black and white.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The new Kong isn't a remake of the original, and was set in the '70s.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

See Wikipedia. It details all the various versions and speeds. No 100 speed was ever made. There was an ASA 200 professional version. Most folks in the 1970s were using ASA 25 or 64 versions.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

My original reference was to the personnel assigned to take photos as their MOS.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Got it!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

EZsh00ter Loc: Ottawa, On. Canada

I saw the movie last night. She was a photojournalist, and she processed and printed all her own work. We saw that at the beginning of the movie.
I figure newspapers didn't print colour images at the time. Now about her in the movie, you never saw her change lenses, wide shots, telephoto shots, always the same lens. At the end of the movie, you saw a second camera around her neck. And we saw her shoot in shear darkness. Its a movie...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Wish my M-16 never ran out of ammo like in the movies too.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Some photographers choose to shoot in B&W. It's an effect you cannot get with colour. I was shooting for magazines in the early 80's and some of them were printing pictures in B&W and wanted B&W from me.

crphoto8 Loc: Anaheim, California

Color film was around in 1973, both negative and positive. I have used color film since the early 60s, mostly slides due to cost and then prints. I also used B&W with my father's box camera when I was a teenager.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

No, they are not the same. ASA/ISO is built on a linear scale (ASA 400 = 2 X ASA 200), while DIN is built on a logarithmic scale. For instance ISO 100 = 21° DIN and ISO 200 = 24°. For each doubling of ASA / ISO, there is an increase of only 3° DIN.

Billynikon Loc: Atlanta

You might have noticed in the picture that quite often she was taking pictures in low light. Most color films were 25 or 64 ASA. Tri X was 400 and could be pushed higher if needed.