NASA and Ektachrome

[gr82bart]

NASA. NASA was the photographer......
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2017/01/06/images-nasa-shot-kodak-ektachome/

Regards, Art

 

[darkroommike]

Meisel Photochrome in Texas did a lot of work with NASA, their former processing plant is apparently now an EPA super fund site.

https://www.etsy.com/listing/157051829/rare-set-of-vintage-nasa-photographs

 

[Hubigpielover]

Nice piece of history.

 

[Photo Engineer]

They also cross processed Ektachrome in C22 and used Ektacolor S and ECN.

There was some Anscochrome in there as well.

PE

 

[Harry Stevens]

I thought they would have gone for Kodachrome best slide film ever in my humble opinion.

 

[tedr1]

an answer might be found at these Project Apollo sources

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/

 

[keenmaster486]

Maybe it was high speed Ektachrome?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I'm fairly sure High Speed Ektachrome did not exist until the introduction of the XL movie cameras which shot by the light of a candle in the commercials. This would have been 1972 by my recollection.
By then, Kodacolor (and presumably regular Ektachrome) had been re-rated to ASA 80 I believe.

High Speed Ektachrome was announced in 1959. Google it.

 

[keenmaster486]

So maybe PE can shed some light on exactly which Ektachrome it was, and why in God's name they ever cross-processed in C22.

Does cross-processing E2/E4 in C22 yield the same sickly urine colors as crossing E6 in C41?

 

[klownshed]

For the Apollo missions, NASA had Kodak make them custom emulsions in perforated 70mm film with an extra thin base so that they could get 160 colour frames (200 in B&W) into a custom Hasselblad back. It was based on Ektachrome.

https://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/apollo_photo.html

 

[tedr1]

I believe "sunny 16" arises because sunlight is a reliable light source. In space above the atmosphere it is perfectly consistent whereas on earth atmospheric changes (haze and cloud) alter the brightness, so in addition to "sunny 16" we have "cloudy f8".

At the surface of the earth the brightness of sunlight is less than in space because of absorption by the atmosphere. I think that the reduction in brightness for an overhead sun is about 10%. This suggests that "sunny 16" would be appropriate for a subject in space in direct sunlight. In space because there is no atmosphere the only light is the sun, whereas on earth there is always additional light from the dome of the sky. In space, without this indirect light, shadows are completely black and very high contrast is a problem.

 

[Photo Engineer]

HS Ektachrome was rated at 160 ASA IIRC, but in C22 it was rated at 400. The cover of Life magazine of Alan Sheppard was one of those shots. Uncorrected by masking, the color was rather sick but masking fixed a lot of problems.

Kodachrome was not used because it could not be processed in-house. They finally did use it on later launches to a certain degree.

PE

 

[Harry Stevens]

I was listening to a BBC late night program a few weeks ago and some one was telling an account of how they (USA)use to take pictures from spy satellites and they would return the film to earth via a small parachute type system and then it would be picked up and sent to Kodak in Rochester for development.

How the hell would you reload it?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I was listening to a BBC late night program a few weeks ago and some one was telling an account of how they (USA)use to take pictures from spy satellites and they would return the film to earth via a small parachute type system and then it would be picked up and sent to Kodak in Rochester for development.

How the hell would you reload it?

They didn't. There is a lot of info on the web. For a start, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-7_Gambit

 

[Harry Stevens]

A very interesting read,thank you for the links ......

 

[dutchsteammachine]

HS Ektachrome was rated at 160 ASA IIRC, but in C22 it was rated at 400. The cover of Life magazine of Alan Sheppard was one of those shots. Uncorrected by masking, the color was rather sick but masking fixed a lot of problems.

Kodachrome was not used because it could not be processed in-house. They finally did use it on later launches to a certain degree.

PE

Have you ever seen original flown slides from NASA yourself? I would like to know if they had a color cast back then, or if it is an effect of aging. Even though the slides are stored at 0 degrees C or just below at NASA's archive in a climate-controlled room. They are pretty old now for Ektachrome slides, which are known to age badly unlike Kodachrome.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, I was present when they were processed. In fact, I flew in a Huey back from the cape with the film for rush processing. We had to avoid the crowds on the beach, so I laid on air transport. The cross processed film had color problems that were partially corrected by Life and Nat. Geo. I have a special edition NG magazine for "participants" that is about 25 pages long and has many photos.

Sadly, some are ageing poorly and many have been destroyed in a NASA house cleaning years ago. Same thing with USAF copies. Gone! I have posted some here.

PE

 

[dutchsteammachine]

Yes, I was present when they were processed. In fact, I flew in a Huey back from the cape with the film for rush processing. We had to avoid the crowds on the beach, so I laid on air transport. The cross processed film had color problems that were partially corrected by Life and Nat. Geo. I have a special edition NG magazine for "participants" that is about 25 pages long and has many photos.

Sadly, some are ageing poorly and many have been destroyed in a NASA house cleaning years ago. Same thing with USAF copies. Gone! I have posted some here.

PE

Source that space flight originals (official term used on the metal boxes that contain them) have been lost?

As far as I know, the originals are inside a canister, which is inside a narrow metal box (with a label describing whats inside, SPACE FLIGHT ORIGINAL) those are then inside a climatec-controlled freezer, which is inside a climate controlled archival room, which is inside Film Archive (Building 8) at Johnson Space Center (JSC). Due to the importance in preserving these films, the original film is not allowed to leave the building.

The film is stored in a freezer (0° F), which is located in a large refrigerator that is maintained at 55° F. The staff at JSC has a rigorous procedure for removing film from the freezer for scanning or making copies.

1. The sealed film canister is transferred from the freezer to the refrigerator where it is allowed to equilibrate for 24 hours.
   
   
2. The sealed canister is then removed from the refrigerator and placed in a room temperature environment and allowed to equilibrate for an additional 24 hours.
   
   
3. The film is then removed from the canister, hand cleaned and used for whatever reason it was opened for.
   
   
4. The film is placed back in the canister, sealed, and then placed back in the cold vault.

 

[Photo Engineer]

And many duplicates were stored at Wright-Patterson AFB as well, but what happens when space runs out? There are documented instances of images and tape recordings of space flights having been destroyed. Some images have never been shown before outside of NASA closed doors.

I do know that the University of Central Florida had undertaken the job of reconstructing some missing images, but AFAIK this project has been discontinued.

Every month, I prepared two shipments to WPAFB. One was classified and the other unclassified photo materials for storage. NASA took their own originals from the USAF and did their own thing with them. Neither organization really did a good job AFAIK.

One tidbit never mentioned before.... The USAF had the ability to put a satellite into orbit long before the USSR, but were told not to by JFK. He wanted NASA to do the job so that it was not seen that the military was moving into space. In any event, the first satellite we launched was the one prepared many years earlier and grounded. It was not until NASA had suffered so many failures that JFK reversed himself.

PE

 

[Arklatexian]

Meisel Photochrome in Texas did a lot of work with NASA, their former processing plant is apparently now an EPA super fund site.

https://www.etsy.com/listing/157051829/rare-set-of-vintage-nasa-photographs

When I was working in a camera store, we sold packets of prints from Meisel of pictures on the moon. They were great. Ulrich Meisel would come to Shreveport, LA to lecture so I had the opportunity to meet him. A very nice man and a very smart cookie (pardon the slang).....Regards!

 

[keenmaster486]

PE, what do you know about the original Blue Marble shot? I read on Wikipedia that it was an 80mm lens on the custom Hasselblad. How fine-grain was this Ektachrome film they were using? It seems like what you'd get after processing would be a black transparency with a blue dot on the middle that would be difficult to enlarge.

Or just how large does the Earth really appear from the Moon?

 

[Photo Engineer]

That shot was taken about 1/2 way to the moon, and the earth filled the sky pretty much. From that POV it was not too blue due to being over the east coast of Africa.

The shot was, AFAIK, taken with the Hassy with a normal lens.

PE

 

[jtk]

For the Apollo missions, NASA had Kodak make them custom emulsions in perforated 70mm film with an extra thin base so that they could get 160 colour frames (200 in B&W) into a custom Hasselblad back. It was based on Ektachrome.

https://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/apollo_photo.html

Yes. But I think the thin base had as much to do with improved detail resolution as fitting extra frames into a Hass back. It was certainly Ektachrome...there have always been specialized versions, some of which are/were capable of resolution beyond lens capability.