As I get time, I'll keep looking to try to find out just how far plain Panatomic goes back in Kodak production history...
Egypt & Istanbul vacation on 35mm nitrate, 1937 Kodak Panatomic X
-
A
- Thread starter dutchsteammachine
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Color by Beseler Print Processing Drums
- Started by logan2z
-
Want to Buy Jobo 3005 expert tank for 5 sheets of 8x10
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale FS: One of a kind Canonet QL17 GIII, PANDA
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
Kodak Verichrome is 1932, previously Wratten and Wainwright introduced Verichrome 1907/8 discontinued after merging with Kodak Ltd 1913.
No mention of Panatomic film in the 1933 BJPA, Panatomic is first listed in 1934.
The Kodak -X films, Panatomic-X Super-XX, Tri-X, rtc, wer were Kodak trying to catch up with Ilford's new much finer grained emulsions Fine Grain Panchromatic. and Hypersensitive Panchromatic however by the time they were released Ilford had just introduced FP2 and HP2.
It's probable the reason Tri-X was initially only availabe as a sheet film was it was felt to be too grainy for smaller formats, it disappeared from production during WWII possible because a component chemical manufactured in Germany was unavailable.
Ian
No mention of Panatomic film in the 1933 BJPA, Panatomic is first listed in 1934.
The Kodak -X films, Panatomic-X Super-XX, Tri-X, rtc, wer were Kodak trying to catch up with Ilford's new much finer grained emulsions Fine Grain Panchromatic. and Hypersensitive Panchromatic however by the time they were released Ilford had just introduced FP2 and HP2.
It's probable the reason Tri-X was initially only availabe as a sheet film was it was felt to be too grainy for smaller formats, it disappeared from production during WWII possible because a component chemical manufactured in Germany was unavailable.
Ian
Great information!
As I understand it, until Kenneth Mees helped establish the Kodak Research Laboratory in 1912, the vast majority of emulsion advances were from buying and incorporating other film, plate and paper manufacturers patents and recipes. Heck, Mees was with Wratten and Wainright in Great Britain, so Kodak got a great film stock and their premier research scientist in one bundle! Not a bad deal...
Last edited:
you should contact the Smithsonian -- stuff like this has immense value for history and research ... they can advise you on restoration and so forth -- in fact, if I were you I'd donate them to the Smithsonian or some similar institution that can properly store and restore and salvage them. If they are nitrate based, they are more fragile and unstable than you can safely deal with on your own.
Even the photo from inside the boat appeals to me. I like the sunlight glistening off the water and can imagine myself there; the photo looks like it could've been made yesterday.
One problem was Mees and his school friend and colleague Sheppard were more interested in pure research into the photographic process itself, there were actually two Kodak Research labs one in Rochester and the other in Harrow - which was staffed by Wratten & Wainright people who had't gone to Rochester. So Kodak fell behind in the 1920's in terms of emulsion technology, their first fine grain developer was published 1926/7 about a year before D76. Some of this was because the advance of miniature formats was very much initially a European phenomena.
Surprisingly this carried over after WWII into the late 1960's and early 70's where Kodak Ltd (UK) made developers for the European market that were never seen in the US, two example are Kodak HDD - High Definition Developer and Kodinol (Kodak's version of Rodinal) - Mees had actually done the research at Wratten & Wainright into p-Aminophenol developers (and published it). But then Kodak Ltd published formulae never seen in any Eastman Kodak publications.
Ian
Actually it's on pages 292&3 of the 1934 BJPA.. It was coated in the US, and UK.
Ian
OP
OP
Picture #3
There's a glitch in the matrix.
There's a glitch in the matrix.
In panorama #3, there are rack drip marks. I see these ALL the time in camera original motion picture negatives in the silent era.
This suggests to me it was processed on in a rack and tank processing system; probably just stapled onto some motion picture film. Bet they were shooting the short ends from a 35mm camera shooting the expedition; very common.
I'll bet that these stills were taken in addition to motion picture film. Could be some documentary photography for an academic expedition that included motion pictures.
A little bit of research and you might find a University with motion picture film matching your stills.
Last edited:
This is very interesting! Wasn't part of the rational behind the early Leica cameras was to be able to use less expensive cine film? These are beautiful.
How can these be explained ??
As they are not traces of deposits, but instead on the negative in this case must have been patches of near-zero density.
I have seen strings of both clear and black spots on negatives and prints. I can only surmise that, in the case of negatives, perhaps the racks were not washed sufficiently between rolls and fixer got on the film prior to development, or the wash water was contaminated, but I cannot be sure.
In any event, they are frequently present on film processed under less than ideal conditions...
In any event, they are frequently present on film processed under less than ideal conditions...
OP
OP
Any ideas how this dark negative can be explained?
Some canisters have "Intensified" and "Successfully intensified" written on them. Read up on 'Farmer's intensifier'
Perhaps PE can give us some insight?
There seem to be very thin lines of normal gray film between the frame and spacing between frame. Notice the upper left in the middle image. This also appears around edge numbers and text, which are black and have a thin gray seperation line between them and the rest of the edge.
See in the video below at 8:25:
Some canisters have "Intensified" and "Successfully intensified" written on them. Read up on 'Farmer's intensifier'
Perhaps PE can give us some insight?
There seem to be very thin lines of normal gray film between the frame and spacing between frame. Notice the upper left in the middle image. This also appears around edge numbers and text, which are black and have a thin gray seperation line between them and the rest of the edge.
See in the video below at 8:25:
Last edited:
I suspect the negatives on the top image are copies on reversal processed film, possibly done using a slide duplicator, they aren't contact printed. Probably copied onto Safety film.
Ian
Ian
Indeed, copying a negative optically onto another film which is then reversal processed would yield such result. (As would copying twice.)
With "Intensified" and "Successfully intensified" I so far would have thought of chemical intensifying, but in this case it seems attempted to achieve this by copying. This is something unorthodox. at least.
With "Intensified" and "Successfully intensified" I so far would have thought of chemical intensifying, but in this case it seems attempted to achieve this by copying. This is something unorthodox. at least.
OP
OP
Its like archeology, but for film!
We should create our own name for it, and start an ***eology museum!
We should create our own name for it, and start an ***eology museum!
First of all, can you confirm that they are duplicates of other film images you have on other strips? If not, they are probably just intensified with Farmers's or some other metalic salts toner.
If so, you may have a dupe element made on a rotary contact motion picture printer.
Your images are too small for me to see, but take a high powered loupe and closely examine the areas around the perforations on each side to see if you can find the printed-in trace of an additional set of perforations. They will only be on one side, but if they are there, it will only be on one side and be just to the inside of the film's perforation.
(rabbit hole warning...)
Nitrate film shrinks from the moment it is manufactured until it turns into brown powder and disintegrates. In fact, for the first 20 years or so, the shrinkage was so rapid that motion picture film was sold unperforated and it was the cinematographer's job to perforate enough film stock the night before the next day's filming began, or it would shrink to the point of being unusable before production began.
However, Kodak and other manufacturers eventually learned how to manufacture a base that was far more stable and shrank at a greatly reduced rate; thus being able to sell pre-perforated stocks that were ready to shoot out of the can. That being said, the film still shrank, but a much lower rate.
What does that have to do with the "ghost perforations"?
When nitrate was shot and processed, it instantly shrank a predictable amount (above and beyond the normal rate); 0.0003 inches to be precise. This shrinkage was both linear and "across the web" or in the lateral direction. Bell & Howell discovered this shrinkage rate about 1907 when they did a series of studies to develop their new rotary contact motion picture printer. They found that when film newly perforated to a pitch (distance between perforations, top to top) of .1870 inches was processed/developed, the resulting pitch of the film was then an average of .1866 inches.
Using this information, they designed a printer sprocket with shaped teeth that, when stock of .1866 film was wrapped almost half way around it, a layer of film pitched at .1870 inches would lay perfectly flat onto the lower layer of film. The lower layer was the developed negative and the upper layer was the positive print film and a light shone up through the negative to expose the upper positive stock through a slit of about 2 perforations in width. The film was transported past the slit at a known rate to expose the print and stable contact printing was born.
Being that the singular sprocket only drove the film across the slit on one side, the shrikage of the negative showed up on the OPPOSITE by printing the relief of the perforations from the negative stock onto the positive.stock.
When stable base stocks like acetate and polyester arrived, there was a problem; the film no longer shrank, so the film would not lay flat in the gate of the printer over the sprocket. So, they began perforating all camera original stocks at the .1866 inch standard and all lab copying stocks at the longer .1870 pitch to avoid obsoleting the huge investment of about 70 years worth of cinema production machinery.
That is why to this day, camera original stocks are perforated at .1866 (short) pitch and print stocks and still film are perforated at .1870 (long) pitch.
If so, you may have a dupe element made on a rotary contact motion picture printer.
Your images are too small for me to see, but take a high powered loupe and closely examine the areas around the perforations on each side to see if you can find the printed-in trace of an additional set of perforations. They will only be on one side, but if they are there, it will only be on one side and be just to the inside of the film's perforation.
(rabbit hole warning...)
Nitrate film shrinks from the moment it is manufactured until it turns into brown powder and disintegrates. In fact, for the first 20 years or so, the shrinkage was so rapid that motion picture film was sold unperforated and it was the cinematographer's job to perforate enough film stock the night before the next day's filming began, or it would shrink to the point of being unusable before production began.
However, Kodak and other manufacturers eventually learned how to manufacture a base that was far more stable and shrank at a greatly reduced rate; thus being able to sell pre-perforated stocks that were ready to shoot out of the can. That being said, the film still shrank, but a much lower rate.
What does that have to do with the "ghost perforations"?
When nitrate was shot and processed, it instantly shrank a predictable amount (above and beyond the normal rate); 0.0003 inches to be precise. This shrinkage was both linear and "across the web" or in the lateral direction. Bell & Howell discovered this shrinkage rate about 1907 when they did a series of studies to develop their new rotary contact motion picture printer. They found that when film newly perforated to a pitch (distance between perforations, top to top) of .1870 inches was processed/developed, the resulting pitch of the film was then an average of .1866 inches.
Using this information, they designed a printer sprocket with shaped teeth that, when stock of .1866 film was wrapped almost half way around it, a layer of film pitched at .1870 inches would lay perfectly flat onto the lower layer of film. The lower layer was the developed negative and the upper layer was the positive print film and a light shone up through the negative to expose the upper positive stock through a slit of about 2 perforations in width. The film was transported past the slit at a known rate to expose the print and stable contact printing was born.
Being that the singular sprocket only drove the film across the slit on one side, the shrikage of the negative showed up on the OPPOSITE by printing the relief of the perforations from the negative stock onto the positive.stock.
When stable base stocks like acetate and polyester arrived, there was a problem; the film no longer shrank, so the film would not lay flat in the gate of the printer over the sprocket. So, they began perforating all camera original stocks at the .1866 inch standard and all lab copying stocks at the longer .1870 pitch to avoid obsoleting the huge investment of about 70 years worth of cinema production machinery.
That is why to this day, camera original stocks are perforated at .1866 (short) pitch and print stocks and still film are perforated at .1870 (long) pitch.
-) the negative chemically intensified would not have turned the out-of-frame areas black
-) a duplicate would have the out-of-frame areas blank as the original negative
But Ian's idea of optically copying frame by frame on a slide duplicator and then reversal-processing that copy film, explains what we see. (As would the use of a slide duplicator and douple copying instead of one-stage reversal processing.)
No, it would not.
The first copying stage would yield positive images on a film with clear rebates and spacers-
Copying this film as a whole, would yield negative images on film withe black rebates and spacers. For this stage a slide duplicator no longer would be necessary. Though whether the use of such device or full copying was more easy depended on the equipment at hand back then.
The first copying stage would yield positive images on a film with clear rebates and spacers-
Copying this film as a whole, would yield negative images on film withe black rebates and spacers. For this stage a slide duplicator no longer would be necessary. Though whether the use of such device or full copying was more easy depended on the equipment at hand back then.
Last edited:
OP
OP
All rolls are unique, there are no duplicates. Sometimes scenes are photographed multiple times with a different exposure, but the framing is always a little different.
There is only one exception of this, on roll 4, where 10 photos were taken with the exact same framing, just different exposure. But the rest of the roll is unique, so those could have been taken with a tripod. it was an indoor (temple, tomb?) scene. Its canister reads "2 x Intensified + laa-???-opl" where ??? I cant read the handwriting.
There is only one roll where I can see frame sprockets 'projected' onto the film on the top and bottom. roll 'Egypt' (It has no number!) with some offset from a physical frame sprocket. There are also mild light leaks around the physical sprockets going towards the middle of the frame. This is only at the beginning of the roll though.
The YT video I put up contains almost all rolls of film. I could take a high-res photo of a particular frame if you want, send me a timestamp.
There is only one exception of this, on roll 4, where 10 photos were taken with the exact same framing, just different exposure. But the rest of the roll is unique, so those could have been taken with a tripod. it was an indoor (temple, tomb?) scene. Its canister reads "2 x Intensified + laa-???-opl" where ??? I cant read the handwriting.
There is only one roll where I can see frame sprockets 'projected' onto the film on the top and bottom. roll 'Egypt' (It has no number!) with some offset from a physical frame sprocket. There are also mild light leaks around the physical sprockets going towards the middle of the frame. This is only at the beginning of the roll though.
The YT video I put up contains almost all rolls of film. I could take a high-res photo of a particular frame if you want, send me a timestamp.
Last edited:
As a whole? Even cinema contact printers do not expose beyond the middle of the perforation unless special edge lights are used to print through edge numbers and that signature is apparent. Why would you switch from a slide duplicator to yet another copying mechanism mid-process? Doesn't seem likely...
No, I agree that the reversal theory put forth by Ian is the most likely candidate; the unexposed rebate and frameline being exposed and developed as dmax when the image was re-exposed to light before the 2nd development.
The perf images you describe sound more like filmstock being lightly flashed before being loaded in a cassette, not the artifact of a contact printing on a rotary contact printer. This tended to happen a lot when unloading short-ends of filmstock from motion picture cameras. No matter how careful you are in the field, it is hard to keep from slightly exposing the first wrap of film when you unload it in a makeshift darkroom or changing bag. Smart photographers throw out the first full wrap of any short ends they use in still cameras. If you are using it again in a motion picture camera, its not so critical, as thread-up tends to take care of that issue...
We are not at the movie industry, but at some amateur(?) darkroom, likely in the 30s.
Even a slide duplicator (as Ian hinted at) back then likely not existed yet. Maybe a single frame contact copier.
So there are somec question marks behind our assumptions so far.
Copying a whole strip in contact under a glass pane seems not far fetched to me at all.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |