No color film in 1973 (Page 6): In 71 or 72, I had a job working for a TV station shooting newsfilm. We used color exclusively, basically 16mm ektachrome. But for publications like...

Bill P

In 71 or 72, I had a job working for a TV station shooting newsfilm. We used color exclusively, basically 16mm ektachrome. But for publications like newspapers and magazines, printing color was another thing, with expensive and time consuming color separation to produce the CMYK plates, the expense of presses held back newspapers from upgrading to color, and many newspapers today still have trouble holding color printing in register. So the answer is , what you saw may be silly clueless people more interested in atmosphere than accuracy. For today's millenials, 1970 seems so far away!

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

burkphoto wrote:

Yep. I came to like those DIN ratings because they were easier to relate to 1/3 stops of exposure difference. Why the ISO folks didn't choose to use a log scale is puzzling to me... even though I know the history of it.

Because the Instamatic crowd can't relate to log scales and decibels like we do.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Color photography has been possible for a long time. There were many reasons to choose B&W however. The biggest reason is perhaps permanence. A well processed B&W negative stored carefully is said to last 500 years. Photographic processes that use dyes, color prints, slides and color negatives are FAR LESS permanent. The dyes decompose over time. Kodachrome and Agfachrome were the best dye based media. Giclee prints produced from digital sources are considered to be of archival. Giclee uses pigments and not dyes. Pigments are finely ground minerals similar to those used in oil paints. Technicolor used 3 B&W negatives photographed through R G and B filters. The Dye transfer process was use to make positive film prints. Dye transfer still photos are truly magnificent but expensive and time consuming to produce.

Early three color work can be viewed at http://mashable.com/2014/09/30/russian-revolution-in-color/

A search for Autochrome photos ( ~1900) will also be interesting.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

many images demand, look better, have more poignancy and impact when shot in B/W.

camera_junkie

I worked as a photo-journalist from 1962 - 1989. Unless specifically requested by the client, all assignments were executed with Tri-X film. In those days we could push Tri-X to 1200 ASA and still have quite usable prints. Shooting Nikon equipment exclusively. This was, of course, long after the advent of color emulsions.

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

Shot Kodachrome color slides on a trip to Spain in 1970.

Don

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

It's certainly been established that color film was available well before the time period of this film. The only question is whether it is reasonable that a photojournalist would be shooting B&W film at that time, and I think that has been established as well.

weedhook

Also, B&W prints in 1973 were far more archival than color prints. The pictures of my wedding which were done in B&W and printed on fiber-based paper still look like new after 55 years. Lots of the color prints in our photo albums have faded with time even though they have not been exposed to light.

GrumpyOldBeardGuy

Pablo8 wrote:

An often used Ektachrome film 35mm glorified by Kodak as...HSE... High-Speed Ektachrome (200 asa). Same (lowest setting) speed now, in some digital cameras.

I remember HSE as ASA 160. But you could push it to ASA 400 and get the ESP1 mailer and send it to Kodak.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

weedhook wrote:

Also, B&W prints in 1973 were far more archival than color prints. The pictures of my wedding which were done in B&W and printed on fiber-based paper still look like new after 55 years. Lots of the color prints in our photo albums have faded with time even though they have not been exposed to light.

Even today, the expected life of a chromogenic (silver halide dye-coupled traditional RA-4 process) print is only 40 years. EPSON Ultrachrome color inkjet prints can last over 200 years without significant fading, under similar conditions, according to Wilhelm Imaging Research.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

burkphoto wrote:

Even today, the expected life of a chromogenic (silver halide dye-coupled traditional RA-4 process) print is only 40 years. EPSON Ultrachrome color inkjet prints can last over 200 years without significant fading, under similar conditions, according to Wilhelm Imaging Research.

And with a digital original it can be reprinted if desired, although some people don't seem to think that digital can be permanent. If properly curated it can significantly outlive any physical medium.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Peterff wrote:

And with a digital original it can be reprinted if desired, although some people don't seem to think that digital can be permanent. If properly curated it can significantly outlive any physical medium.

True, but that's a big if. In its favor is the potential to make multiple, truly identical copies, and store them on multiple media in multiple locations.

Al Freeedman

I have some Cibachrome prints that are about 40 years old that look like they were just printed.

Captain Al

BebuLamar

Peterff wrote:

And with a digital original it can be reprinted if desired, although some people don't seem to think that digital can be permanent. If properly curated it can significantly outlive any physical medium.

theorically digital is only numbers 1 and 0 and you can remember it in your head.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

BebuLamar wrote:

theorically digital is only numbers 1 and 0 and you can remember it in your head.

Err, no.