This thread {from which the present post was split off} is fascinating stuff. I first came across Lippmann plates maye 10 years ago, and they have often been on my mind in idle moments.
I have a big question about this, so prepare for a bit of a lengthy read. I'll try keep it brief, though.
So, to cases: there is this method of photography which has multiple benefits and also huge significant difficulties asociated with it.
The benefits are: it really produces beautiful results. The results are pure in their representation of colour, and do not vary dependent on pigments or chemical processes, which are sort of arbitrary, and are definitely subjective. The output is cear and should be replicable at any time and place once the conditions of lighting and subject etc are met. Thus, there are few variables to tune. Count this as both a benefit, and an issue in some cases.
A prerequisite of their production seems to be the use of very high resoltion emulsion. Therefore in theory, the process should be future-proof in the sense of any future developments in lens technology which lead to improved resolution power. This is not the case for even digital sensrs at the hiighest end. In fact, if the technique could be modernised, then it would create a master which could be used as a basis for remastering using any emergent digital technologies of the future.
The downsides with the process are obvious: at the moment the process is unweildy in the extreme, involving extreme exposure times, a limited range within which to view the output, the expense, hell, the whole process.
The question I ask is this: Should the Lippmann process be reexamined in the industry with the goal of using newer material technologies in an attempt to introduce it into the market in a form which not simply allows for use in consumer photography, but alo in professional spheres, including film itself?
I ask this because of several issues which may combine to make such a movement viable, to wit:
Dead at Birth?
It is known that several things conspired to ensure that the process never made it to the level of being a marketable commodity. First among these is likely the fact that Autochromes were coming to market at the time. They were relatively easier to use, and they also had all of the energy and backing of the Lumiére brothers, who were approaching the issue of colour plates not as a scientific development existing in a vacuum, but also as a way to make money, and lots of it. That's not to deny the science behind what they achieved. Their product was a fantastic achievement. Lippmann was far more academic, on the other hand, and for him the plates were not a step to market as much as they were a step towrds the creation of holograms. Lippman and the Lumiéres had different motives, and the brothers were first to market. Further research into Lippman plates seems to have effectively halted, and has been only intermittently revisited .
To date, also, there has been no real reason to even consider mounting a challenge to colour repodruction. All the research money went into a method which produces very satisfactory results using dyes of ever-increasing sophistication. Any development of new or even speciality film fell roughly within that paradigm which had been established, and the baton was subsequently picked up in digital formats. There never eally has been a marketable case for looking for an alternative to what we have now.
The State of Play.
So what do we have now? Well, I'd argue that we have created someting of a problem with the move to digital. The most obvious of these is that the digital product can never be improved when newer digital technologies arrive. Yes, they can be remasterd, with interpolation, with "AI", and with other methods, but these all involve creating new data through guesswork, albeit informed guesswork. On the other hand very high resolution physical media can be remastered to the limit of the data the master contains. There is no additive idea at work - the process is simply revealing data which was hitherto latent to the process.
Why Lippmann?
Firstly, it is often a good scientific practice to reexamine old techniques to see if they might have value now, given the progress in other fields. Mutual explotation of new techniques looking for a home, and an old one which has potential for exploiting that progress, can yield results. In this case Lippmann has done the ground work, creating a model, and proving the concept. A new set of hands might realise its true potential.
Why bother?
Market forces, for one. The quality of the product for another. The futureproofing of the product too.
As to why the market would even consider investing in taking the idea forward: major interests include the companies who produce film itself - this has been a very very lucrative market for beasts such as Kodak. By servicing the film industry, they also had a huge market in consumer photography. A new type of stock, which offered extreme resolution, simplified development, the ability to faithfully remaster as and when new digital technologies arrive are selling points. It might also force a change in the optics industry, who have never had real pressure to mass-produce lenses capable of a resolution which need only ever be as fine as the light-sensitive media which is recording it. Also, the film industry itself.
The film industry? Yes. With companies such a Netflix hogging the market, cinemas need new blood. Netflix would seemingly not simply be happy with, but also somewhat reliant on, a purely digital input - one which has led to a degree of sameness of output, and rather insipid photography. They could only be challenged by a product which can only be seen in its proper glory on the big screen. They would have to be content with digital copies of the movie, but even for them there would be a future benefit. If the masters for a film were all in a Lippmann format, then when 12k, 100k, whateverK arrives, they can at least remaster to the very limit of the source.
Oh, I almost forgot - and this could be a major source of investment: when you get into very high-resolution image capture, you also enter into a different market: that of very high-capacity high-speed data archiving. I think that there are some parallel efforts in this field to be opened for exploitation.
What would it take?
Presumably a shitload of research as well as commitments from all parties to collaborate in a large-scale drive to pull it off. Research would need to exploit every new appicable technology. A flexible reflective backing for film to bounce the light off would need to be created. Fine emulsions with great sensitivity would need to be developed. Copying methods would need to be included. Additionally, new optics would be needed. If a suiable refective backing could be creating to support the emulsion, then there would need be only two layers. A requirment of the emulsion would eed to be that it has sufficient surface tension as to remain perfectly flat on the micro-etched backing as not to bleed into the etches.
Is this even possible? I have to think so. It has to be borne in mind that digital photography and, to a lesser etent, analog photography, have been in somehing of a deadly embrace with optics firms. There exists an unspoken pact whereby the two need to march in lockstep when it comes to matters such as resolving power of lenses and sensitivity of sensors. By that I'm not saying they have huddled privately and agreed to cap progress in their fields, rather that neither has faced huge technology pressure to think differently. An interloper such as Lippmann technology would break that unformed cartel. Why should I, as a manufacturer of lenses, produce glass cpable of resolving to 1000 lpmm, when no sensor is capable of reading all that? Likewise, why should I urge the boys in the lab to produce film or digital sensors to give me gigapixel capability when no lens exists to feed it?
To sum up:
Firstly, I have to make it clear that I am not advocating resolution in itself as a good thing - in fact, I'd happily trade in 14 of the megapixels on my Fujifilm XT-5 for a lock button on the EV dial - but there would be some major benefits as I see it to reviving Lippmann:
True colour; no dyes, couplers, etc.
A very high-quality fixed-in-time physical archive which is relatively future-proof.
A differentiator for cinema audiences as against home viewing.
I'll admit it: I subjectively prefer film, so as a consumer I'd give my eye teeth for its potential.
Miniaturisation. Forget the car-sized gear needed for IMax. Given enough resolving power and the optics, you could probably film The Oddyssey in 8mm format!
Sorry for the screed and the rant.
I have a big question about this, so prepare for a bit of a lengthy read. I'll try keep it brief, though.
So, to cases: there is this method of photography which has multiple benefits and also huge significant difficulties asociated with it.
The benefits are: it really produces beautiful results. The results are pure in their representation of colour, and do not vary dependent on pigments or chemical processes, which are sort of arbitrary, and are definitely subjective. The output is cear and should be replicable at any time and place once the conditions of lighting and subject etc are met. Thus, there are few variables to tune. Count this as both a benefit, and an issue in some cases.
A prerequisite of their production seems to be the use of very high resoltion emulsion. Therefore in theory, the process should be future-proof in the sense of any future developments in lens technology which lead to improved resolution power. This is not the case for even digital sensrs at the hiighest end. In fact, if the technique could be modernised, then it would create a master which could be used as a basis for remastering using any emergent digital technologies of the future.
The downsides with the process are obvious: at the moment the process is unweildy in the extreme, involving extreme exposure times, a limited range within which to view the output, the expense, hell, the whole process.
The question I ask is this: Should the Lippmann process be reexamined in the industry with the goal of using newer material technologies in an attempt to introduce it into the market in a form which not simply allows for use in consumer photography, but alo in professional spheres, including film itself?
I ask this because of several issues which may combine to make such a movement viable, to wit:
Dead at Birth?
It is known that several things conspired to ensure that the process never made it to the level of being a marketable commodity. First among these is likely the fact that Autochromes were coming to market at the time. They were relatively easier to use, and they also had all of the energy and backing of the Lumiére brothers, who were approaching the issue of colour plates not as a scientific development existing in a vacuum, but also as a way to make money, and lots of it. That's not to deny the science behind what they achieved. Their product was a fantastic achievement. Lippmann was far more academic, on the other hand, and for him the plates were not a step to market as much as they were a step towrds the creation of holograms. Lippman and the Lumiéres had different motives, and the brothers were first to market. Further research into Lippman plates seems to have effectively halted, and has been only intermittently revisited .
To date, also, there has been no real reason to even consider mounting a challenge to colour repodruction. All the research money went into a method which produces very satisfactory results using dyes of ever-increasing sophistication. Any development of new or even speciality film fell roughly within that paradigm which had been established, and the baton was subsequently picked up in digital formats. There never eally has been a marketable case for looking for an alternative to what we have now.
The State of Play.
So what do we have now? Well, I'd argue that we have created someting of a problem with the move to digital. The most obvious of these is that the digital product can never be improved when newer digital technologies arrive. Yes, they can be remasterd, with interpolation, with "AI", and with other methods, but these all involve creating new data through guesswork, albeit informed guesswork. On the other hand very high resolution physical media can be remastered to the limit of the data the master contains. There is no additive idea at work - the process is simply revealing data which was hitherto latent to the process.
Why Lippmann?
Firstly, it is often a good scientific practice to reexamine old techniques to see if they might have value now, given the progress in other fields. Mutual explotation of new techniques looking for a home, and an old one which has potential for exploiting that progress, can yield results. In this case Lippmann has done the ground work, creating a model, and proving the concept. A new set of hands might realise its true potential.
Why bother?
Market forces, for one. The quality of the product for another. The futureproofing of the product too.
As to why the market would even consider investing in taking the idea forward: major interests include the companies who produce film itself - this has been a very very lucrative market for beasts such as Kodak. By servicing the film industry, they also had a huge market in consumer photography. A new type of stock, which offered extreme resolution, simplified development, the ability to faithfully remaster as and when new digital technologies arrive are selling points. It might also force a change in the optics industry, who have never had real pressure to mass-produce lenses capable of a resolution which need only ever be as fine as the light-sensitive media which is recording it. Also, the film industry itself.
The film industry? Yes. With companies such a Netflix hogging the market, cinemas need new blood. Netflix would seemingly not simply be happy with, but also somewhat reliant on, a purely digital input - one which has led to a degree of sameness of output, and rather insipid photography. They could only be challenged by a product which can only be seen in its proper glory on the big screen. They would have to be content with digital copies of the movie, but even for them there would be a future benefit. If the masters for a film were all in a Lippmann format, then when 12k, 100k, whateverK arrives, they can at least remaster to the very limit of the source.
Oh, I almost forgot - and this could be a major source of investment: when you get into very high-resolution image capture, you also enter into a different market: that of very high-capacity high-speed data archiving. I think that there are some parallel efforts in this field to be opened for exploitation.
What would it take?
Presumably a shitload of research as well as commitments from all parties to collaborate in a large-scale drive to pull it off. Research would need to exploit every new appicable technology. A flexible reflective backing for film to bounce the light off would need to be created. Fine emulsions with great sensitivity would need to be developed. Copying methods would need to be included. Additionally, new optics would be needed. If a suiable refective backing could be creating to support the emulsion, then there would need be only two layers. A requirment of the emulsion would eed to be that it has sufficient surface tension as to remain perfectly flat on the micro-etched backing as not to bleed into the etches.
Is this even possible? I have to think so. It has to be borne in mind that digital photography and, to a lesser etent, analog photography, have been in somehing of a deadly embrace with optics firms. There exists an unspoken pact whereby the two need to march in lockstep when it comes to matters such as resolving power of lenses and sensitivity of sensors. By that I'm not saying they have huddled privately and agreed to cap progress in their fields, rather that neither has faced huge technology pressure to think differently. An interloper such as Lippmann technology would break that unformed cartel. Why should I, as a manufacturer of lenses, produce glass cpable of resolving to 1000 lpmm, when no sensor is capable of reading all that? Likewise, why should I urge the boys in the lab to produce film or digital sensors to give me gigapixel capability when no lens exists to feed it?
To sum up:
Firstly, I have to make it clear that I am not advocating resolution in itself as a good thing - in fact, I'd happily trade in 14 of the megapixels on my Fujifilm XT-5 for a lock button on the EV dial - but there would be some major benefits as I see it to reviving Lippmann:
True colour; no dyes, couplers, etc.
A very high-quality fixed-in-time physical archive which is relatively future-proof.
A differentiator for cinema audiences as against home viewing.
I'll admit it: I subjectively prefer film, so as a consumer I'd give my eye teeth for its potential.
Miniaturisation. Forget the car-sized gear needed for IMax. Given enough resolving power and the optics, you could probably film The Oddyssey in 8mm format!
Sorry for the screed and the rant.
Last edited by a moderator:
