[PRCo] Re: Slide color

[Fred Schneider]

They used formaldhyde (the same stuff we use for embalming) as a dye  
preservative) as the last step in that old E2 or E3 process.   I  
wonder if stability had anything to do with how vigorously or how  
fresh the stabilizer was.   Oh, well, too late now to do anything  
about it.

And there probably isn't anyone left at Kodak in Rochester whom we  
could ask.   All the people with brains have long since either moved  
on or were laid off.    I remember a year or two ago when a friend  
called up Rochester to talk to someone on the floor where all the  
technical / consulting people used to me, he was told there isn't  
anyone left there today.    It has been said that they don't even  
have any people left who could engineer a film emulsion today; that  
they're OK as long as nothing goes wrong.    Those of us still using  
film and those of us who still print pictures (I last had my hands in  
chemicals yesterday) are dinosaurs.

On Dec 31, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Bob Rathke wrote:

> Fred,
> I had the same experiences with a few random rolls of Ektachrome-32  
> holding
> their color for decades.  For example, attached is a recent scan of an
> Ektachrome slide that I took in Johnstown on January 3, 1960.  By
> comparison, nearly all of my Ektachrome slides from 1960 had lost  
> most of
> theor red and yellow hues within 5-10 years.
>
> Bob 12/31/06
>
> -----------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Schneider" <fwschneider at comcast.net>
> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 7:23 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Slide color
>
>
>> And it didn't much matter who processed it [Ektachrome E2] either,
>> Bob.   It was eratic.  I have some slides on a roll that are still OK
>> and others on the same roll that faded badly.   I never sent it
>> out ... processed my own because I was cheap.   Boy the stuff looked
>> great when you first looked at it as it dried hanging up in the lab.
>>
>> I wonder if Kodachrome was in short supply because Eastman Kodak was
>> trying to push Ektachrome?   Sort of like the Volkswagen Fox was
>> never abundant in the United States because the builder really would
>> have rather sold a Golf.
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Bob Rathke wrote:
>>
>>> I started taking slides with ASA10 Kodachome.  Kodachrome slides
>>> that I took
>>> in the 1950's have held their color very well; I don't recall
>>> getting any
>>> gray (colorless) slides on dreary days, but with a whopping speed
>>> of 10, I
>>> probably didn't try to take many Kodachrome-10 photos on overcast
>>> days.
>>>
>>> When first introduced, Kodachrome II  (ASA25) was in short  
>>> supply.  It
>>> wasn't until 1961 that Kodachrome II totally replaced the ASA10
>>> type, and
>>> was widely available.
>>>
>>> So...in 1960, to get slide film with a moderate speed, I switched to
>>> Ektachrome (ASA32) - but fortunately only for a year until I  
>>> could get
>>> Kodachrome II.  By the mid-1960's my 1960-era Ektachome slides
>>> experienced a
>>> drasatic color shirft.  Fortunately, today's computer software can
>>> correct
>>> the color in those old Ektachome slides.
>>>
>>> Bob 12/30/06
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Donald Galt" <galtfd at att.net>
>>> To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:01 AM
>>> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Tylerdale
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 29 Dec 2006 at 22:29, Fred Schneider wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I truly suspect that the colors in that picture are as close as
>>>>> you're going to get to realism and that the red and cream  
>>>>> streetcar
>>>>> is the only object on a gray day that had any color other than
>>>>> various intensities of gray.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like you, Fred, I had plenty of experience with Kodachrome II but
>>>> none
>>>> with its
>>>> predecessor.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, though, I don't think we are looking at a slide.
>>>> Rather, at a
>>>> low-
>>>> resolution 120 print that has been touched up - quite expertly! -
>>>> by a
>>>> colourist. It looks so very much like some of the better of the b&w
>>>> pictures
>>>> that I used to take as a child. The tinges of in the snow look to
>>>> be done
>>>> by a
>>>> human hand, and the tinting isn't as crisp as the photo itself. The
>>>> yellowish
>>>> cast to the entire picture could possibly come from the camera but
>>>> could
>>>> just
>>>> as likely be due to a subtle wash. 1707 may well be the only vivid
>>>> object
>>>> in
>>>> the photo. Not that vivid, though, not in this unpromising light.
>>>>
>>>> I can't prove it - just my hunch. As I said, if a tint job, a
>>>> skilful one.
>>>>
>>>> The colour quality available to the well-heeled photographer as
>>>> long ago
>>>> as 6
>>>> decades is seen in the Washington Interurban photos in Bill  
>>>> Volkmer's
>>>> Pittsburgh Area book. A couple of them claim to date from 1944. In
>>>> any
>>>> case,
>>>> the Washington city pictures are obviously no later than their  
>>>> stated
>>>> 1952-3.
>>>> Oh, if only we had a few more like them! Or a few dozen more.
>>>>
>>>> Don Galt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- Attached file removed by Ecartis and put at URL below --
> -- Type: image/jpeg
> -- Size: 59k (60601 bytes)
> -- URL : http://lists.dementia.org/files/pittsburgh-railways/ 
> JTC416-010360.jpg
>
>
>