pros in the olden days

[sodarum]

Hi,

lately I've been interested a lot in the history of fashion photography. But there is very little information available about the technical aspects of the work of major photographers prior to around 2000's. What I am most curious about is whether E4/E6 or printed C22/C41 was the "standard" (most usual) submitted material for magazines like Vogue, Elle and Bazaar in the 70's and 80's.

I think I've read somewhere that Guy Bourdin used Kodachrome, but I might be imagining things. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

I'm not just asking this about fashion magazines, but for other types of photography too, like National Geographic (I'm pretty sure they used a lot of 35mm E6, didn't they?), advertising, books etc. I'll exclude wedding photography here, because it was always oriented toward making a small amount of prints for the customers, so C41 was a natural choice (not to mention that the white gown and the black suit call for the extended latitude of negative film).

I remember that years ago, in the mid 2000's there were still some photographers on photo forums that considered E6 to be the professional format, vs. C41 to be somehow amateur. I'm not sure how much this was based in reality. I was never a pro photographer, so I have no clue.

Then another thing that I'm wondering about is; in the field where reversal film was used, was Kodachrome the pro standard (and Ektachrome, the second choice...), or vice versa. I'm asking because later on, Kodachrome became a sort of "special look" film, and E6 were the "standard" films. But it might have been the other way around because, I'm sure there was a time when Kodachrome outperformed Ektachrome in terms of (I'm talking about 60's maybe?) color accuracy. That changed later of course.

Well any insight shared would be valuable, especially from oldtimer pros who have priceless first hand experience.

thanks

 

[sodarum]

Note for mods:

Sorry, I made a mistake. I wanted to post something here too, and I opened two reply forms in different tabs, but I didn't see which one was which, so I posted this in the wrong forum. I meant to have posted this in the film and processing forum. So can you please move it there, and delete this post when it's done. Thanks.

 

[summicron1]

Ntl Geo used to be one of the biggest users of Kodachrome on the planet, and it showed. When they went back and shot that Afghan girl 20 years later, or whatever it was, with a digital camera, the difference was stark, and a huge decline.

 

[MattKing]

In fact, National Geographic had their own in-house Kodachrome lab in Washington DC, and the volumes in that lab were the highest still film volumes in the world.

They would also use local Kodachrome labs where appropriate - I can remember my father, a long time Kodak Canada manager, expediting some processing for a National Geographic photographer who was shooting a story in British Columbia in the mid 1970s.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Most color fashion work was done with slide film. By the 90s, when I got my start as a professional, it was all E-6. Very little Kodachrome was used commercially by then. E-6 was basically the standard for anything that was going to be published (advertising, fashion, magazine editorial, catalogs, etc.), except for Newspapers. They usually used color neg films.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Oh dear...

"70's and 80's" = "olden days?"

Surely you are referring to the 1870s and 1880s?



Ken

 

[MattKing]

By the way, I would be cautious about referring here on APUG to times like the 60s, 80s, 90s and 2000s as the "olden days".

The "Golden Era" is permitted!

 

[snapguy]

olde time

For a long time, into the 1970s and 1980s at least, color negative film was not very sharp and most pros used color transparency film. Kodachrome was hard to beat for sheer high quality images but the early stuff was pretty gaudy and the colors were not real. The original Kodachrome was ASA 10. It went to 50 and 64 and the colors were better. Early Ektachrome was not that sharp but got better. I sold color to magazines and newspapers in the 1960s and 1970s all over the world and most foreign publications preferred 120 film over 35mm. I would shoot b&w with a Nikon F and a Leica M2r and color with a Rolleiflex or a Yashicamat. I shot Tri-X and Ektachrome.

 

[MattKing]

A lot of published Kodachrome was shot on Kodachrome II - ASA 25. In its day, it was considered fast!

Transparency film had the clear advantage as well in that it served as a reliable reference to the pre-press operators and other individuals involed in the production of published work. Their systems were set up with transparencies in mind.

 

[benjiboy]

Most studio fashion colour photography was done on medium or large format slide film, it was young guns like David Bailey that persuaded the picture editors of Vogue and Harpers to reluctantly accept stuff shot on 35mm cameras.

 

[jp498]

One BIG thing slide film had going for it was that color was wsiwyg. No opportunity for a lab to screw up printing exposure/color/contrast, etc.. If you wanted it warm or cold or dim or high key, that's exactly what you got and nobody would "autofix it" in the lab. Printing it was another story and that is a very practical reason why wedding was c41 because c41 is easier to print (and the dynamic range was nice) Labs for weddings/portraits were not the general purpose / drugstore lab; they did weddings and portraits and knew what sort of prints would please everyone. Printing slide was tougher, requiring either an internegative or cibachrome print. But the printer (or prepress person) had THE original to work with and could see the colors and tones for guidance on reproduction. I wasn't a pro, but there were many slide films available to work with depending on speed, contrast needs, preferences, etc.. Fujichrome 100, Velvia 50,100, Sensia, Astia, Kodachrome 25,64,200, Ektachrome 100,200, tungsten balanced variants of many of these. Polaroid even had a near-instant slide film you could develop yourself in a couple of minutes, which I used in a slide recorder to make presentations for people where I worked.

 

[snapguy]

olden redoux

For me the olde days were when Elvis was in the building and if you were quick and clever you could get photographs of him. There was also Lana Turner, Princess Grace before she was royalty, Ava Gardner, Liz Taylor, Bob Hope, Sonny and Cher, a single Prince Charles, The Beatles and even Gene Autry and Hopalong Cassidy. And my favorite -- Groucho Marx.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Transparencies were also easy to edit on a light table and they look great that way.

 

[Xmas]

From 65 to 85
fgun two lead acid, brick Kchrom 25, M 35mm lux, F 5cm/2 Weston/invercone was all I took to weddings and reception ocassionally a 135mm

proof was in couples living room weeks later
staple gun king size sheets short lens in magazine projector
Two runs through 200 to 250 slides
Brides normally cried part way through 1st run, one hid in loo, did not like the 135s rendering of nose.

Id agree them was the good old days...

I dropped the film off at the processing lab - I knew where box 14 HemelHempstead was.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Transparencies were also easy to edit on a light table and they look great that way.

Why the past-tense in were?
Transparencies still do look mighty good. I'm sifting through three rolls on my new Artograph Lightpad 940: soooooooooooooo bright I can save electricity by switching two other lights off in the studio...

 

[Xmas]

Why the past-tense in were?
Transparencies still do look mighty good. I'm sifting through three rolls on my new Artograph Lightpad 940: soooooooooooooo bright I can save electricity by switching two other lights off in the studio...

Because everyone else (cept me) shoots c41 has it scanned in lab and uses a digital picture frame thing...

 

[Soeren]

Because everyone else (cept me) shoots c41 has it scanned in lab and uses a digital picture frame thing...

I do????? Nope, do shoot C41 but still love the look of slides. Too bad E6 films are so darned expensive.
Best regards

 

[Michael W]

One BIG thing slide film had going for it was that color was wsiwyg. No opportunity for a lab to screw up printing exposure/color/contrast, etc.. If you wanted it warm or cold or dim or high key, that's exactly what you got and nobody would "autofix it" in the lab. Printing it was another story and that is a very practical reason why wedding was c41 because c41 is easier to print (and the dynamic range was nice) Labs for weddings/portraits were not the general purpose / drugstore lab; they did weddings and portraits and knew what sort of prints would please everyone. Printing slide was tougher, requiring either an internegative or cibachrome print. But the printer (or prepress person) had THE original to work with and could see the colors and tones for guidance on reproduction. I wasn't a pro, but there were many slide films available to work with depending on speed, contrast needs, preferences, etc.. Fujichrome 100, Velvia 50,100, Sensia, Astia, Kodachrome 25,64,200, Ektachrome 100,200, tungsten balanced variants of many of these. Polaroid even had a near-instant slide film you could develop yourself in a couple of minutes, which I used in a slide recorder to make presentations for people where I worked.

I was assisting in the mid '90s and everything you say is correct. This was magazine work - photo editors could look at the transparencies on their light box as first generation positives, which were also references for how it would look in print. We mostly used Fuji Astia as it was the most accurate Fuji film. Also did lots of proofing on Fuji instant film. In reply to the OP, I think fashion shooters did all sorts of things - some E6, some B&W neg, some lith prints, some pack films like Sarah Moon with Polaroid 665.

 

[Roger Cole]

Oh dear...

"70's and 80's" = "olden days?"

Surely you are referring to the 1870s and 1880s?



Ken

I had the same reaction Ken. I developed my first film at about age 9, circa 1972, and was avidly doing darkroom work in the basement, to my parents bemusement (and occasional admiration) in high school in the late 70s and early 80s. Damned whippersnappers!

In the days of E4 the standard was a 35mm Kodachrome (because that was the only format it was available in) or an 8x10 Ekatachrome for most work. I recall reading that in Pop Photo when it was actually an excellent magazine. E6 was much better and as it improved that changed, as mentioned above. It took a LOT longer for neg film to really catch up though and I'm not sure it ever completely did, however good it became.

 

[Steve Smith]

it was young guns like David Bailey that persuaded the picture editors of Vogue and Harpers to reluctantly accept stuff shot on 35mm cameras.

Sometimes duplicated onto medium format film to fool them!


Steve.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Past tense for art directors at slick magazines looking at slides on a light table. Present tense for slides still looking good that way.

 

[sodarum]

Hi everyone, thanks for all the replies.

First of all, I didn't mean "olden days" in a sarcastic or disrespectful way. In fact, I have a fascination with those times. But we all have to admit that 40 years has passed since 1974, for example. That's a lot of time.

Anyway.

So from what I have gathered from reading through all these posts; transparencies were the norm for most published pro work.

Can someone tell me then, when exactly did Kodachrome stop being the workhorse, and E4/E6 started being the "industry standard"?

Even though I didn't want this to end up in the MF forum (that was a mistake...), but since it's here, let's focus on 120/220 format.

If I remember correctly Ektachrome EPR was introduced in the 70's (1976?), and even though it was probably tweaked, over the years, the basic emulsion formula stayed the same (I think someone from Kodak confirmed that to me, or to someone else I asked), and it looks comparable to more modern Ektachromes like E100G. So I'm guessing that even as early as 1976 Ektachrome was good enough for most pro work.

So basically, if I was a photographer doing a (high profile) full page ad for a magazine in say 1976 or 1986, what would I use? 35mm Kodachrome? 120 Ektachrome? or E6 sheet film?

 

[Xmas]

The choice would depend on turnaround and deadlines.

National Graphics could use Kchrome 120

A weekly mag with a news story only E6, there were 24/7 labs in London, so few hours from out of blad mag to editors desk max any 24/7. Bike dispatch rider drop and pickup.

This week's fashion show or last weeks?

I think it was probably the 'blunt nibs' going from hot metal press to direct entry word processing that reduced kodachromes window - as all the print deadlines shortened for publications that were current or near current news.

Then digital backs killed it.

 

[Michael W]

So basically, if I was a photographer doing a (high profile) full page ad for a magazine in say 1976 or 1986, what would I use? 35mm Kodachrome? 120 Ektachrome? or E6 sheet film?

Full page ads would almost certainly have been shot on sheet film, 4x5 or even 8x10 was common.

 

[Jim Noel]

Not quite correct. Original Kodachrome has a Weston speed of 8, this was before ASA. "Indoor" Kodachrome had a speed of 12. I used the "Indoor" with #5 flashbulbs to photograph high school basketball games. I also disagree about the sharpness. I have slides from 1940 that are superbly sharp. The second generation was Kodachrome 25 and those of us used to the original derided it as being inferior in color rendition. Early Ektachrome had a definite blue cast. I still have the slides from my first roll.