Kodachrome during World War 2

[Craig]

I was seeing some of the very impressive Kodachromes taken during World War 2, and it struck me that everything I have seen was taken by an "official" photographer. Was Kodachrome available for general sale in the 1939-45 period, or was it's supply and processing restricted to government departments? I'm sure it would have been expensive, but could a civilian even buy it?

 

[falotico]

Kodachrome must have been available to the public at large. My great aunt took 16mm Kodachromes of her nephews in uniform during the war which films we still have.

 

[CMoore]

I was seeing some of the very impressive Kodachromes taken during World War 2, and it struck me that everything I have seen was taken by an "official" photographer. Was Kodachrome available for general sale in the 1939-45 period, or was it's supply and processing restricted to government departments? I'm sure it would have been expensive, but could a civilian even buy it?

No doubt, something along the lines of, just, what you suggest.
Not sure if it was "restricted" per se.....but That Time Period Was/Remains unique to history. Detroit stopped making cars for the bulk of The War.
Kodak had to ship Everything across The Atlantic. And THAT was a very dangerous proposition until the Spring of 1943. I would imagine that Kodachrome was a Very Low Priority, unless it involved The War Effort.?
EVERYTHING was ear-marked for The War.
Any chemical or metal (or anything else) was rationed and prioritized in some way.
Do you have a link to any of the pictures.?

 

[railwayman3]

I'm fairly sure that I've read somewhere that Kodak had a Kodachrome lab in Berlin up to the time the US entered the war, and also that I've seen pics of the Nazi big-wigs on Kodachrome from that time ?

 

[Craig]

Do you have a link to any of the pictures.?

The link: http://www.shorpy.com/Large_Format_Kodachromes

 

[Craig]

I'm fairly sure that I've read somewhere that Kodak had a Kodachrome lab in Berlin up to the time the US entered the war, and also that I've seen pics of the Nazi big-wigs on Kodachrome from that time ?

Given there was Agfacolour at the time, I'd be surprised if the Nazi's would use a foreign film when there was a German film available.

 

[benjiboy]

I'm fairly sure that I've read somewhere that Kodak had a Kodachrome lab in Berlin up to the time the US entered the war, and also that I've seen pics of the Nazi big-wigs on Kodachrome from that time ?

Are you sure it wasn't Agfachrome?

 

[benjiboy]

I have seen in the U.K a 10"X8" Kodachrome transparency that was a portrait of Captain Clarke Gable of the U.S.A.A.F in uniform, most probably taken in Britain in WW11, it looked very much like a professional shot.

 

[railwayman3]

Are you sure it wasn't Agfachrome?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ographer-captured-Third-Reich-Kodachrome.html

I think the above may have been one reference which I recalled. On re-reading it, it may be that the Daily Mail is using "Kodachrome" as a generic term for colour pictures....the samples shown do not particularly stand out as being Kodachrome from that era, more like early Agfa. OTOH, I'm sure that I've seen others online from that era described as Kodachrome and much more convincing....I'll have a search online when I have more time.

 

[AgX]

Given there was Agfacolour at the time, I'd be surprised if the Nazi's would use a foreign film when there was a German film available.

As a side note, Kodak had two plants in Germany and explicitely declared their cameras german products.

 

[AgX]

I'm fairly sure that I've read somewhere that Kodak had a Kodachrome lab in Berlin up to the time the US entered the war, and also that I've seen pics of the Nazi big-wigs on Kodachrome from that time ?

There was an article in Life magazine in 1970, page 49

And recently these photographs likely erroneously were called Kodachromes in the Daily Mail

 

[benjiboy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ographer-captured-Third-Reich-Kodachrome.html

I think the above may have been one reference which I recalled. On re-reading it, it may be that the Daily Mail is using "Kodachrome" as a generic term for colour pictures....the samples shown do not particularly stand out as being Kodachrome from that era, more like early Agfa. OTOH, I'm sure that I've seen others online from that era described as Kodachrome and much more convincing....I'll have a search online when I have more time.

I used Agfachrome for many years and it certainly looks like it to me, it's a lot less saturated than Kodachrome, and I can't see the highly indoctrinated Nazis.using a film from such a decadent degenerate country as America, full of jews and negros in their eyes, when a homegrown company was producing perfectly good transparency film..

 

[AgX]

I'm fairly sure that I've read somewhere that Kodak had a Kodachrome lab in Berlin up to the time the US entered the war, ...

Yes, there was a Kodachrom processing lab at the Kodak plant. I don't know how long it was active during the war.

I can't see the highly indoctrinated Nazis.using a film from such a decadent degenerate country as America, full of jews and negros in their eyes, when a homegrown company was producing perfectly good transparency film..

Kodachrom film has been used in official production, and both Agfacolor and Kodachrom were well recepted at official symposia etc. I do not know of any bias against Kodachrom. It was a niche product anyway.
Kodak Germany though adapted the spelling...

And as I said, Kodak had plants in Germany during the whole Nazi reign.
As had Ford, General Motors, IBM etc.

 

[falotico]

There was an owner of a camera store in Germany who took 16mm Kodachrome films of the highest ranking Nazi officials attending the opening of a Nazi-sponcered art exhibition. It was beautiful stuff and definately Kodachrome. Shots of Hitler, Goebbels and Himler walking down the front steps of the museum, in particular.

 

[railwayman3]

Going back to the original question, I remember my Grandfather, who was married (in the UK) in 1942, saying that the local professional photographer who took the pictures had one 120 film to cover the whole wedding. I think that it was a matter of lack of supplies of film rather than formal rationing, and, as my grandad was an amateur photographer himself and we now just have five different finished prints of the wedding, I have no reason to doubt the story.

 

[MattKing]

In 1942 I'm surprised that a professional photographer would have been using 120 film for a wedding.
My parents 1953 wedding was photographed on 4x5 sheet film.

 

[AgX]

Kodachrome supplies in the UK during wartime got under control of the government and only few civilians got access.

 

[Craig]

Going back to the original question, I remember my Grandfather, who was married (in the UK) in 1942, saying that the local professional photographer who took the pictures had one 120 film to cover the whole wedding.

That would have been B&W though? At the time still (as opposed to movie) Kodachrome was available in 35mm, 828, and sheet sizes up to 11x14. 120 didn't come until 1986.

 

[falotico]

IIRC Kodak tried to invent a color film which could be developed in the field during WWII. Reconnaissance photos in black and white did not show bodies of water very well. Kodak developed an intermediate product which would produce blue-colored details as part of the entire image. For a time this partial color product was used for such work. Possibly the British requisitioned the Kodachrome supplies to fullfill the same purpose. In the Pacific theater all the gun camera film used on fighters was Kodachrome. This film was exposed when the pilot fired his machine guns at an enemy ship or plane.

 

[trendland]

I was seeing some of the very impressive Kodachromes taken during World War 2, and it struck me that everything I have seen was taken by an "official" photographer. Was Kodachrome available for general sale in the 1939-45 period, or was it's supply and processing restricted to government departments? I'm sure it would have been expensive, but could a civilian even buy it?

Well Craig - so many speculations....!
Who is right ???
I remember a tv documentary from title:
USAF over Europe (end 44 - may 45).
With remarcable colors .
USAF used Kodachrome (16mm / 35mm Cine Film) as state of the art first.
So it may be the truth that it wasn't easy
to work with still film before.
During war times in general lots of stuff is restricted from production.
Have a look at Leica's history. Most expensive cameras came from the time during 39 - 44 ?

Because of small production. The famoust series "Luftwaffe gray" was just in very small production for military officials.
Sometimes we don't want to know what these cameras "saw"..?

with regards

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

I've collected early Kodachrome's for a few years, and while supply of "general" shots taken from 1942-1945 is pretty scarce, they do exist, indicating at least some availability of stock and developing. I was able to date this one to 1943 based on license tags...

http://quirkyguywithacamera.blogspot.com/2014/09/classic-kodachrome-monday-10.html

That said, for consumers, the Kodachrome story seems to start around 1938 for the privileged early adopters in 828 and then 135, then dropping sharply in use after 1941, only to pick back up again beginning in 1946.

More results that I've shared can be found here:
http://quirkyguywithacamera.blogspot.com/search/label/Kodachrome

 

[railwayman3]

That would have been B&W though? At the time still (as opposed to movie) Kodachrome was available in 35mm, 828, and sheet sizes up to 11x14. 120 didn't come until 1986.

Yes, I omitted to say that it was B&W....I think my point was that all films must have been in short supply here in the UK at that stage of the War, if one film was all that a professional would have available to cover a whole wedding. If I were the photographer,I would have been sweating until the negs were successfully processed and printed !

I don't think that a small provincial photographer in the UK would be using colour film until at least the 1950's. The norm would have been B&W prints hand-coloured.....I have two local professional family portraits which are dated 1962 and are hand-coloured.

 

[railwayman3]

In 1942 I'm surprised that a professional photographer would have been using 120 film for a wedding.
My parents 1953 wedding was photographed on 4x5 sheet film.

I'd agree....but I'm sure that my Grandad's wedding photos from 1942 were on 120... I definitely recall his mentioning 120 film and, as a keen amateur photographer himself (having, IIRC, a pre-war Ikoflex), I doubt he'd have got it wrong. It may have been a case of the professional having to use whatever film was available at that stage of the War ! (The wartime shortages of almost everything in the UK were probably just reaching their worst at that time.)

 

[Wayne]

My father shot 16 mm film during in New Guinea during the war, but I've never checked to see what it was. Probably Kodachrome. But he was in the Navy and that may be how he obtained it too.

<goes to check>

Nope, the leader says Ansco...

 

[foc]

Wasn't the Ansco film prior to the US entering WW2, the same as Agfacolor.