Documentary on Glass Plate Photography of King Tut's Tomb

choiliefan · Apr 17, 2019

Looking at an old (c1938) Leica darkroom book there's mention of Leica Dufaycolor film.
Described as an acetate base with a superimposed microscopically fine screen consisting of squares and lines of the three primary additive colors. Coated with a panchromatic emulsion having a selective color balance which enables the film to accurately reproduce the entire visible color spectrum.
Never heard of this before. Is this a different thing than the Agfa and Kodachrome?

AgX · Apr 17, 2019

We are spoiling this thread. There were really countless approaches to natural colour photography. Look up some older threads, take a textbook on this matter or pm me.

Nodda Duma · Apr 17, 2019

choiliefan said:
Looking at an old (c1938) Leica darkroom book there's mention of Leica Dufaycolor film.
Described as an acetate base with a superimposed microscopically fine screen consisting of squares and lines of the three primary additive colors. Coated with a panchromatic emulsion having a selective color balance which enables the film to accurately reproduce the entire visible color spectrum.
Never heard of this before. Is this a different thing than the Agfa and Kodachrome?

Yes. Dufaycolor falls into the same category as Autochromes for creating color images.

cowanw · Apr 17, 2019

There is mention, in other reports, of needing pan chromatic plates to distinguish the two main colours in the tomb, Black and Gold. So this makes me think of commercial glass plates. I sent an email to the research source for an answer.

cowanw · Apr 17, 2019

Already a response!
From Prof. Christina Riggs, Chair in the History of Art and Archaeology | Dept. of Art History and World Art Studies | Sainsbury Centre 0.28 | University of East Anglia | Norwich
From her email:
"Burton used commercial dry plates - ordered from London (James Sinclair was one company he often used) and sent out to Egypt for the purpose. I think by that date, everyone had switched to dry plates; "

cowanw · Apr 17, 2019

And Burton did shoot some Autochromes as well as some movie footage.

MattKing · Apr 17, 2019

TerryM said:
Only 13 years later in 1935 the highest quality medium ever devised for recording colour images was introduced: KODACHROME Film!

I tend to prefer Kodachrome II (and later versions of Kodachrome) to those early, 1935 versions of Kodachrome.

jtk · Apr 17, 2019

http://www.electrummagazine.com/201...ital-pioneers-in-archaeological-preservation/

There's also a complex software suite that can be used in the field, with common digital cameras, to identify and photograph for later monitor or print evaluation, non-visible evidence of long-gone petroglyphs....cant' find that at the moment...installation was very demanding.

https://fotoarchaeology.blogspot.com/2012/02/archaeological-photography.html

CMoore · Apr 17, 2019

Awesome video...Thanks For Posting.
Regards the survival of film.....i think i have experienced the opposite.
I do mostly "Street Photography" so that puts me in contact with other photographers and people with cameras. My experience has been, that a big majority of the people i meet that shoot film do not "print"....they scan.
My take is.....if they had to have a darkroom, they would not shoot film.
My own hobby is just the contrary.....if i could not have a darkroom, i would probably give up film. The ability to work in a red light darkroom and make "latent prints" is the main reason i use film.

TerryM · Apr 17, 2019

cowanw said:
Already a response!
From Prof. Christina Riggs, Chair in the History of Art and Archaeology | Dept. of Art History and World Art Studies | Sainsbury Centre 0.28 | University of East Anglia | Norwich ... /QUOTE]
Good research work Bill! That's good to have that clarified. Perhaps it explains why Burton's Plates didn't have a problem with dust specks as the Photographer in the Documentary experienced.

MattKing said:

I tend to prefer Kodachrome II (and later versions of Kodachrome) to those early, 1935 versions of Kodachrome.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to suggest that the original 1935 Kodachrome was better than the improved versions. The subsequent versions were tinkering, including improved Dyes, on the original process. It's the lack of Dye Couplers in the Emulsion which has always made Kodachrome exceptional. The improved Dyes were also used in Negative Film as well.

CMoore said:

...
My take is.....if they had to have a darkroom, they would not shoot film. ...

Click to expand...

I don't blame them one bit. The lack of a commercial photo printing Lab is a massive problem for Film Photography. A decade ago I had tried to convince Kodak not to close their Qualex Photofinishing Lab because it would only foster a downward spiral in Film usage.

cowanw · Apr 17, 2019

Because of the Pan chromatic plates, Burton had to work in complete darkness. the opening of the tomb was covered by two blankets "in series" and the assistant at the door called out the time (and stopped visitors).
I have been to Egypt 5 times now and I don't think the sand or dust was a big a problem as might be thought. The sand is relatively heavy and if only Burton was going into the tomb and not disturbing things much, the tomb is quite a dust free environment. The tombs we visited (and every where else) is very hot but very dry and quite dust free. The plates would dry very fast. Sweaty hands and dripping foreheads would be the major problem. My camera gear never got very dirty when I toured (but that's not plates and developing).
I expect the video's photographers biggest problem was the photographer, the expert and the dozen or so camera and production people in the tomb at the same time as the developing if the dust was post exposure
I agree though, I came away with the "feeling" that the photographer "suggested" a wet plate process, but in retrospect there was no evidence of that in the process not an explicit statement.

TerryM · Apr 18, 2019

cowanw said:
...
I agree though, I came away with the "feeling" that the photographer "suggested" a wet plate process, but in retrospect there was no evidence of that in the process not an explicit statement.

The Documentary should have given more details about Burton's Glass Plates. The average person watching that Doc would be flabbergasted to find out that Photos were ever taken on Glass. I'm glad that you got that important detail clarified for this Thread. Thanks!

AgX · Apr 19, 2019

As I said already, I am puzzled to read that photos on glass are unknown. If someone finds old photographs over here on fleamarkets etc. other than on baryta they are on glass. Glass plates are referred to countless times in the media.

I consider wet-plate photography to be widely unknown.

Nodda Duma · Apr 19, 2019

Kind of the opposite here in the US, AgX. Glass plates can be found in antique stores, sure, but wet plate has seen a resurgence in popularity over the past several years.

cowanw · Apr 19, 2019

I wonder, Nodda, so you consider yours to be wet or dry plates?
EDIT/ Dumb question; you label them as dry plates
So I would suggest there is a resurgence of both

Nodda Duma · Apr 19, 2019

Wet plate is definitely more popular here. The learning curve for dry plates is steeper and the process is more complex.

Part of my motivation for selling dry plates was to do the same thing for this process as folks like Mark Osterman did for wet plate. Not to say I’m the only one making it more popular..there’s other folks (including Mark & Nick, Denise, Ron, etc) doing as much or more than I have.

TerryM · Apr 19, 2019

cowanw said:
There is mention, in other reports, of needing pan chromatic plates to distinguish the two main colours in the tomb, Black and Gold. ...

I guess this makes sense because Black & White Emulsion uses Blue Light, and gold colour would have little or no Blue Light component to leave an image in the Emulsion.

AgX said:
As I said already, I am puzzled to read that photos on glass are unknown. If someone finds old photographs over here on fleamarkets etc. other than on baryta they are on glass. Glass plates are referred to countless times in the media. I consider wet-plate photography to be widely unknown.

The average person is very ignorant of things. Most young people under 25 probably wouldn't really understand what Film is let alone the difference between Negative & Positive Film. When did Glass Plates fall into disuse in Europe? Kodak began selling B&W Acetate Base Film in 1910. I doubt that consumers in North America would have been taking Pictures with Glass Negatives past the mid-1920s.

Regarding Agfa's original colour Films; were those old German movie films from the late 1930s and '40s shot on Agfa Positive or Negative Film?

Documentary on Glass Plate Photography of King Tut's Tomb

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency