Non Kodachrome slides with embossed images? What am I seeing?

[d235j]

Indeed, these slides have cardboard mounts which say 3M Dynacolor on them. So they must be from when Dynachrome was starting to die out. I'll scan a few sometime (including the mounts!), though there's no way that will do justice to the originals!

 

[ssloansjca]

Old films and processes.

Speaking of old processes, there was red boxed GAF 64 etc. This was an E-3 type process as I remember I had to do a manual re-exposure to a light bulb. I used to process this film at home in my bathtub very successfully using a fish tank heater, as I remember, to maintain the temperature. I think these were the old Ansco films as I recall. It was a very low contrast film with good color and not bad for duping. I liked the film when I processed the film. The old GAF processing by GAF, as I recall, was pretty bad.

 

[Photo Engineer]

In the 50s and 60s GAF had a proprietary process that was almost identical to the Ektachrome process and which ran at 75 F. I really don't know what they came out with after that, but they did have a paper compatible with the Kodak paper process, P-122, at that time. I don't know how well it sold. Their reversal print, Printon, was also run through a proprietary process.

PE

 

[ssloansjca]

PE - That sounds right. Those old GAF slides actually held their color pretty well, much better than my old E3 "Ektachrome Professional" transparencies did. They scan very nicely and have a very long scale, a lot of saturation without blocked up shadows. The GAF processing was so bad the films got a bad rep; but if you did the processing yourself the kits were reasonable, the film cheap and it was not that hard to maintain the temperature.

~Steve

 

[Photo Engineer]

Steve;

I did my own processing of Anscochrome and Super Anscochrome. I found that the slides were desaturated and brownish in overall cast but that they kept well. Printon prints were desaturated and kept very well. The E1 slides were wonderful but turned red with keeping. Ektachrome prints of that time have kept well.

PE

 

[ssloansjca]

PE:

This was about 1975 - 77. I only seriously shot GAF64 in 35mm (maybe 120 too) and developed it in their proprietary 1 gallon kit. The colors were decent and held up pretty good. I also developed E4 and E3, at the time Ektachrome Professional EP120 was E3 and Ektachrome X was E4. EP120 came with a sheet of paper in the box that told you the real speed of that batch that might be as low as 32 or as high as 64. EP120 had superb color but required a light re-exposure as I recall. I could maintain temperature of E3 and E4 easily, but not E6. When E6 came out my bathtub slide processing days were through. The E3 slides did not hold up that well over the years. The GAF and E4 slides seem to have done okay. Of course the Kodachromes are superb!

~Steve

~Steve

 

[accozzaglia]

Kodachrome disguised as GAF/Anscochrome, I think.

Well, I'm reviving this thread with purpose. This afternoon, I happen to be staring at three slides which are encased in GAF Anscochrome cardboard. I am at the City of Toronto Archives, and fortunately, they are pre-digitized for you to follow along with me. Have a look at the four links here:

1) This was shot with my phone cam. It was shot seconds ago.
2) This is the first of three.
3) This is the second of three (and the same slide you see with the phone cam shot).
4) This is the last of the trio.

The lion's share, if not all of this collection, is shot on colour slides. Some are Kodak lab-processed (i.e., Kodachrome branding on cardboard). Others have various cardboard sleeves, including Black's [which for locals, we know it *isn't* photography ], and there are quite a few Dynachrome slides, too (first time I've come across any in person).

In short, everything this duo shot appears to have been on K-process emulsion — specifically, K-12, given the window of time involved.

And this is why I'm not sitting easily with the idea that K-12 process emulsion never found its way to being mounted at time of processing to other slide sleeves, including GAF Anscochrome. I've been spending quite a lot of time staring at Kodachrome slide and cine film emulsion, so I'm pretty confident when I'm staring at something K-process and when something is an E-process (or an earlier process like Anscocolor/Agfacolor). And we know that the film in View-Master discs manufactured by GAF around this time were prepared in K-process.

The short of it: I can't inspect the sprocket holes within these sleeves to verify whether the perforations are BH (Bell & Howell, which is seen on Ansco/Agfa colour film) or KS (on Kodak colour film, including Kodachrome). But everything — from detail clarity, "etched" relief emulsion, and general colour palette (including a lack of any fading) — coupled with these photographers' track record of using Kodachrome extensively, suggests that what I'm staring at here is a K-12 process slide in a GAF Anscochrome sleeve. The sleeves are not stamp-dated, but the sub-collection is 1967–1971.

So Photo Engineer, railwayman3, and all else: what's up with this?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Easy enough for me.

Many companies such as Fuji, Konica and Dynacolor processed film using the Kodachrome process for their own brands. But, if you sent in a Kodak product to them, they could still process it. On the other end though, all films got the same mounts. OTOH, Kodak did not (AFAIK) process other brands.

So, what you have is rather normal for 40+ years ago and up to when these companies stopped using the Kodachrome process.

PE

 

[accozzaglia]

So yes, it *is* Kodachrome emulsion. That's exactly as I'd suspected, but I needed the authority of presence I couldn't have known on account for just not being around for it (i.e., not yet born). Thank you so much, Photo Engineer!

Also, I'd read through some literature at one point that the Dynachrome palette was adjusted slightly to render hues ever-slightly differently. This seems to bear out in what I looked through today (a fascinating rendering of green) and dark areas on the emulsion side appearing both raised and completely matte.

My only other familiarity with Dynachrome is by Flickr-proxy.

 

[Photo Engineer]

That is a guess... Dynacrhome could have been Dyancrhome. After all, EK engineers made it in a building about 1 mile south of Kodak Park in a small plant. I can explain only real Kodachrome in a Dynachrome mount or Dyanchrome, Fujichrome or Sakuracolor in the same mounts, via processing in another plant.

I have seen the Sakura plant in Tokyo, and they were doing a straight Kodachrome process as reverse engineered by Konishiroku. They were coating pseudo Kodachrome and processing and mounting it in Sakura mounts. I have many of these with the relief image.

PE

 

[accozzaglia]

Dynacrhome could have been Dyancrhome. After all, EK engineers made it in a building about 1 mile south of Kodak Park in a small plant.

So 3M never manufactured or coated Dynachrome, but they did repackage Kodak-coated emulsion as their own brand?

I have seen the Sakura plant in Tokyo, and they were doing a straight Kodachrome process as reverse engineered by Konishiroku. They were coating pseudo Kodachrome and processing and mounting it in Sakura mounts. I have many of these with the relief image.

In that reverse-engineering effort, was the chemistry compatible?

 

[Photo Engineer]

IDK what 3M did vis a vis Kodachrome vs Dynachrome. All I know is that a band of EK engineers left the company and set their own coating/processing company up on Driving Park Ave. in Rochester, a few miles south of Kodak Park. There, they made compatible products intul K14 and then ceased production.

The Fuji and Sakura films were said to be compatible. I never ran any Kodachrome through them, but I have a lot of Sakura and Fuji films of that era that looked fine. Genuine Kodak processing was very expensive in that era. One roll cost a bit over $10 for the film and processing. In 1959, that was a lot of money.

PE

 

[neelin]

Genuine Kodak processing was very expensive in that era. One roll cost a bit over $10 for the film and processing. In 1959, that was a lot of money.
PE

Very interesting. For interest I looked up our provincial minimum wage in 1959, 0.66/hr and currently $10.00/hr. So 15hrs work at minimum wage for one of these rolls...Wow.

Robert

 

[StorminMatt]

I know that this is an old thread. But I thought I might add that B+W slides produced by the DR5 process have an embossed image on the emulsion side similar to Kodachrome.

 

[Photo Engineer]

So did Matrix and Pan Matrix films. It is due to a hardening effect and the bleaching effect during process. Kodachromes effect is due to that AND the insertion of dyes into the emulsion.

PE

 

[pukalo]

I will add that I too noticed such an embossed relief effect on emulsion side with the few rols of Velvia 35mm I shot this last Fall. It was very interesting to note, but the relief effect is far more subtle than what occurs with Kodachrome. The vast majority of my Fall Colors slides were Kodak EBX, and these did not show this relief effect, only the Velvia. I believe all were processed at the same time at dwaynes also.

 

[Athiril]

I had some RVP come out with subtle embossed images, processed by hand with Kodak chemistry.