Autochrome Recipe from Metropolitan Museum of Art

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 4, 2010

I sent you a PM about your login issues, Denise.

dwross · Feb 4, 2010

Thanks, David! With your help I was able to rescue Pancho .
d

David Hedley · Feb 5, 2010

dwross2 said:
I love learning new things. I wasn't aware of Lavedrine's book in French specifically on Autochrome. I don't own that one. The book I have is a survey of all historical processes. Anyway, I put together the info I have access to here: http://thelightfarm.com/Map/Books/Temporary/BookReview.htm

Thank you for making this available. I have just been reading with great interest the section on screen plates. I wonder if a realistic and relatively easy approach to approximating an autochrome would be to create a screen plate (using modern plastics and dyes, and perhaps based on figure 112 on page 460). This could be fixed to a panchromatic sheet of film (TMY-2, perhaps), which would then be reversal-developed. If I knew an Indian or Chinese plastics or dye factory, I'd be tempted to try this.

Photo Engineer · Feb 5, 2010

David;

The "screen plate" is actually how the Dufay can be reproduced today. I have seen these colored "plates" made via a digital printer onto film support which is then locked in place over a piece of film during exposure. They are separated while the film is processed and then they are again placed in register for projection giving a fine color reproduction of the original.

PE

Athiril · Feb 5, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
This could be done, but you would need 3 sheets of film for the R/G/B record and a 3 color beam splitting camera such as used about 100 years ago for color.

PE

I have some filters for tri-colour, what I mean to say, is that you cant develop/dye exposed silver, pull it before its done, then do another develop with a different develop/dye bath and a third and so on, then bleaching and use? etc?

David Hedley said:
Thank you for making this available. I have just been reading with great interest the section on screen plates. I wonder if a realistic and relatively easy approach to approximating an autochrome would be to create a screen plate (using modern plastics and dyes, and perhaps based on figure 112 on page 460). This could be fixed to a panchromatic sheet of film (TMY-2, perhaps), which would then be reversal-developed. If I knew an Indian or Chinese plastics or dye factory, I'd be tempted to try this.

Id say youd have to know a worker directly to get them to bring you some stuff

A chinese factory/company will have a minimum order quantity of about a container load.

As I found out when I inquired about Lucky colour film in the 300 & 600 metre pancake rolls.. wish someone would sell those directly, would be great for motion picture.

AgX · Feb 5, 2010

David,

`Fixing´ a filter screen to the emulsion could become troublesome in case this would be a permanent fixing, as the processing would have to take place though the screen.
This is why in the Lumiere Autochrome, the Agfa Farbenplatte (both random screen) the Polaroid Polavision/Polachrome (both regular screens) the screen layer is situated on the base.

However, there have been other materials where the screen was loose and would be placed on top of the emulsion. This yields the advantage of making copies much easier. But it needed a regular screen as well as it needed aligning of the viewing screen to positive. These materials are called duplex-systems.

David Hedley · Feb 5, 2010

Yes; if the 'screen plate' looked like the autochrome layer of dyed potato starch / lampblack, I guess you would not have to go through the effort of reproducing the original autochrome manufacturing approach, but could achieve a very similar pointillist effect. You could either use an existing panchromatic emulsion (easy, perhaps), or paint an emulsion onto the back of the screen plate. Definitely worth thinking about.

Athiril · Feb 5, 2010

I just thought of an idea that would be able to have an 'autochrome' like process for black and white stock for motion picture..

Was thinking about depth of field adapters for videl cameras.

This would work better for 8mm and 16mm cameras due to the lengthening of the camera size with depth of field adapters..

General idea is to use a screen plate that also ground on the rear side, or printed OHS plastic etc stuck to the rear of it perhaps.

Then same process as the rest of the dof.. macro lens/dioptre in front of host lens focussing on the on the GG.

AgX · Feb 5, 2010

Autochrome-like random filter screens are good for still photography. But the random spread of filter grains yielded a flicker-effect in the past when employed in cine-films for testing.

A regular filter screen has been used in Polavision motion picture film. But this was instant imaging material.

Photo Engineer · Feb 5, 2010

Kodak used a lenticular screen product many years ago that yielded quite good color images. A similar system is used today for some 3D still systems.

PE

David Hedley · Feb 5, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak used a lenticular screen product many years ago that yielded quite good color images. A similar system is used today for some 3D still systems.

PE

Sounds very interesting! Are those screens commercially available, at a reasonable price?

Photo Engineer · Feb 5, 2010

Not as far as I know. Kodak did make and sell them for a while. They can also produce a pseudo motion effect in 3D similar to that seen in Back to the Future II, when the shark comes out of the photo at Marty. In this case, Kodak made posters using lenticular screens for Jurassic Park and Star Trek that were 3D and had motion. As you walked past a Dinosaur or the Enterprise moved across the poster and either towards or away from you.

The screens must be applied permanently to either the face of a finished print or the back of the film before use IIRC. There are descriptions of this in several historical treatments of color photography. I believe Friedman has a complete description of it, but I have not looked at it for years.

PE

Ray Rogers · Feb 5, 2010

AgX said:
Autochrome-like random filter screens are good for still photography. But the random spread of filter grains yielded a flicker-effect in the past when employed in cine-films for testing.

A regular filter screen has been used in Polavision motion picture film. But this was instant imaging material.

???

That is amazing... I would love to see such a film... do you know if any such products ever made it into a movie we can actually still see?

I had no idea the Polavison film was used for motion picture film...

I am a little surprized that the flicker didn't just blur itself out....

Other than the problem with use in motion picture film, what other differeces were there between random and regular screens?

Ray

Photo Engineer · Feb 5, 2010

Well, Ray, there is the obvious problem that the Dufay regular screen looked, well, kinda regular, and was quite visible. The Autochrome screen could be less visible in large plates of say 5x7 size. In smaller plates, they were both rather bad.

As noted earlier though, Autochrome was never coated on film material under that name. Dufay and Autochrome were coated on glass, and Dufay under its own name was coated on film.

PE

Ray Rogers · Feb 5, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Not as far as I know. Kodak did make and sell them for a while. They can also produce a pseudo motion effect in 3D similar to that seen in Back to the Future II, when the shark comes out of the photo at Marty. In this case, Kodak made posters using lenticular screens for Jurassic Park and Star Trek that were 3D and had motion. As you walked past a Dinosaur or the Enterprise moved across the poster and either towards or away from you.

The screens must be applied permanently to either the face of a finished print or the back of the film before use IIRC. There are descriptions of this in several historical treatments of color photography. I believe Friedman has a complete description of it, but I have not looked at it for years.

PE

I have seen quite a few examples of those screens... but what size scale are the ones you mention were done at Kodak? I don't think I have ever seen them done in poster size.... How much did they sell for at that size?

Ian Grant · Feb 5, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
As noted earlier though, Autochrome was never coated on film material under that name. Dufay and Autochrome were coated on glass, and Dufay under its own name was coated on film.

PE

So what where the famous Lumière "Autochrome" - Ultra-Rapid Filmcolor (cut film) and Lumière "Autochrome" Ultra Rapid Lumicolor (Roll film) then ?

Because that's how Lumiere marketed the film versions.

Ian

Photo Engineer · Feb 5, 2010

Somehow, from somewhere in my readings, I got the impression that Autochrome when coated on film, was sold under another name. I'm sorry for that error. Thanks Ian.

PE

Photo Engineer · Feb 5, 2010

Ray Rogers said:
I have seen quite a few examples of those screens... but what size scale are the ones you mention were done at Kodak? I don't think I have ever seen them done in poster size.... How much did they sell for at that size?

Ray, there were indeed standard poster sized 3D moving posters produced by Eastman Kodak. IDK how much they cost.

A few years earlier, they made a trial run of Ektacolor paper using this technology, and were able to make 3D color prints. It was never sold and remained a lab curiosity.

So, there was a lot of 3D activity, studios used it, and I have no idea of where it stands today.

PE

AgX · Feb 5, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Somehow, from somewhere in my readings, I got the impression that Autochrome when coated on film, was sold under another name. I'm sorry for that error. Thanks Ian.

No error Ron,

When Lumiere used a random filter grain made from starch grains coated on film, they designated it Filmcolor and Lumicolor. Later they used a different screen on a film named Alticolor.

But of course the coating technique employed on plates could not be employed on film (rolls), so in a way those two first films were no Autochromes in that meaning.

Photo Engineer · Feb 5, 2010

AgX;

Thanks for the correction to the correction . I'm not as bad off as I thought. I was feeling pretty bad that my memory had slipped. That is exactly what I had in mind but could not recall the names.

I do have a question for you and Ian then. How does this fit with what Ian posted above?

PE

Ray Rogers · Feb 5, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Ray, there were indeed standard poster sized 3D moving posters produced by Eastman Kodak. IDK how much they cost.

A few years earlier, they made a trial run of Ektacolor paper using this technology, and were able to make 3D color prints. It was never sold and remained a lab curiosity.

So, there was a lot of 3D activity, studios used it, and I have no idea of where it stands today.

PE

I wonder where these huge posters are today... (I don't doubt you are correct that they were made... I have just never seen them. Maybe they were just for internal marketing?) Most, if not all of the ones I have seen are made by Toppan Insatsu - the post card sized images were selling for 5 or 10 USD the last time I saw them which was about 2 months ago.

AgX · Feb 5, 2010

Ian Grant said:
So what where the famous Lumière "Autochrome" - Ultra-Rapid Filmcolor (cut film) and Lumière "Autochrome" Ultra Rapid Lumicolor (Roll film) then ? Because that's how Lumiere marketed the film versions.

AgX said:
When Lumiere used a random filter grain made from starch grains coated on film, they designated it Filmcolor and Lumicolor. Later they used a different screen on a film named Alticolor.

Photo Engineer said:
I do have a question for you and Ian then. How does this fit with what Ian posted above?

To my understanding both me and Ian were wrong a bit:

Lumière called their first screen film Lumière Filmcolor, but added the designation "Portrait Film Autochrome"

The later two films were just called Lumière Lumicolor and Lumière Alticolor.

see here for Alticolor (the same for Lumicolor):
http://page6.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/f72295064#enlargeimg

Ray Rogers · Feb 5, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
I do have a question for you and Ian then. How does this fit with what Ian posted above?

PE

Yes,
Interesting question... I wonder... was the word "Autochrome" ever used the way one might use "Kleenex" or "Xerox" where a popular product name begins to be used to represent an entire group of smilar items... did "Autochrome" ever become synonymous with "color picture"?

Photo Engineer · Feb 5, 2010

Ray Rogers said:
I wonder where these huge posters are today... (I don't doubt you are correct that they were made... I have just never seen them. Maybe they were just for internal marketing?) Most, if not all of the ones I have seen are made by Toppan Insatsu - the post card sized images were selling for 5 or 10 USD the last time I saw them which was about 2 months ago.

Ray;

These were the standard huge posters in the lobby of our local theaters during the first run of the two pictures I mentioned. I also saw duplicates about 1 - 2 months earlier in a show at Kodak for employees. We signed a confidentiality agreement beforehand that expired when the posters were seen in theaters IIRC.

As you walked by, the dinosaur reached out at you and opened his jaws and the enterprise flew from in front of you through the starfleet logo and vanished into warp!

Those were the only two I saw externally. The others, I cannot comment on of course.

The 3D prints were rolls of normally processed Ektacolor 30 paper with the pebble surface for 3D, and they presented excellent color prints in 3D. There was also a talking photo. But then, these are other stories that were in my thread on things never released or released and then never seen again. Just like Kodachrome 400 with t-grains.

PE

Ray Rogers · Feb 6, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
...things never released or released and then never seen again....

PE

Makes me wonder about all the unseen products / inventons of the world... new drinks, flavors, planes, medicine, toys, games, music... each and every field must have many good ideas that never gained a foothold, perhaps not due to their failure, but to a decesion that they would never be good money makers.

To bad those things will dissapear.
Someone should make a museum of things that could have been.

Ray

Autochrome Recipe from Metropolitan Museum of Art

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency