pros in the olden days

[TimFox]

One of the best depictions of fashion photography in the good old days is "Funny Face" (1957) starring Fred Astaire as a photographer obviously based on Richard Avedon. In face, Mr Avedon consulted on the film. Given that, there is a horrible technical error repeated several times: Dick Avery (Astaire) is shooting studio fashion with an 8x10 (Deardorff?) and his assistant is pulling the dark slides. He pulls them only half-way out, and then puts them back after the shot.

 

[Steve Smith]

Given that, there is a horrible technical error repeated several times: Dick Avery (Astaire) is shooting studio fashion with an 8x10 (Deardorff?) and his assistant is pulling the dark slides. He pulls them only half-way out, and then puts them back after the shot.

Perhaps they only needed 5x8 images!


Steve.

 

[MartinP]

In the mid-80's I worked in a lab with 3 1/2 employees which ran dip-and-dunk E6 and C41, up to 10x8". I looked after the black-and-white printing and copy-camera, rather than the colour side of things but can recall a huge amount of large-format E6 going through, and C41 too of course. Kodachrome at that time was already either an amateur film or for niche professional uses, presumably including the infamous National Geographic, partly because it was not possible to process K14 quickly and easily, partly because the colour was not so great and partly because there was only 135 available.

Remember that in a studio the contrast 'problem' just doesn't exist as every photon is under control of the photographer. The E6 transparencies seemed to be the choice where multiple outputs were needed. We printed E6 via the specific Kodak interneg films, also sized up to 10x8" I think. For black-and-white prints from E6 I used 5x4" internegs, made with Plus-X -- but simply because it was a Kodak Q-Lab and we were expected to order a lot of Kodak materials (ie. Kodak = better discount).

There were a lot of wedding packages printed, but I cannot recall anyone using anything smaller than 6x6 on 120, usually some sort of Vericolor I think. Using C41 sheet-film for big groups etc. was also done. At that period, a wedding shot on 135 would have been seen as a rather down-market choice.

 

[Xmas]

At that period, a wedding shot on 135 would have been seen as a rather down-market choice.

True even as late as 85.

A pukka wedding would have several pros with at least several 6x6 or 6x7s or press 6x9 and assistant with reflector etc. or me press ganged into job.

Today our wedding photogs are going to the wall brides supply email address on wedding invite cards and request email of smart phone JPEGs/videos.

Though lots don't bother the vicar or registry office.

 

[Steve Smith]

True even as late as 85.

I think it was the early 1980's when my father changed from Rolleiflexes and Koni-Omega Rapids to 35mm Nikons for weddings. I think it coincided with him starting to use Fujifilm Reala which he said was the perfect film for weddings.


Steve.

 

[jadphoto]

Hi All,

As one of those "old time pros" I think I can answer the OP's original question. That really does sound old doesn't it?

The simple truth was printers, for quality and work flow reasons, preferred to make color separations for four color printing from transparencies not prints or negatives.

Until the magazine and paper products industry started using digital files you had to submit slides or transparencies for color work. Black and white was the exception and was done from prints. Only rarely, such as an article comparing negative films for example, would you submit negatives, and they would be duplicated as print film transparencies, an expensive and exacting process.

At least one photographer I know had his 35mm work duplicated onto 8x10 print film transparencies for a competitive edge.


JD

 

[sodarum]

Thanks for all the new replies.

More and more LF comes up in this thread and I see now the role that it plaid in this type of work for magazines. I hear a lot of LF and 35mm mentioned here, but what about 120? What kind of work was 120 used for mostly?

 

[Len Robertson]

Also, was Kodachrome available in sheet film in the 70's and 80's?

I've been curious myself when sheet Kodachrome stopped being produced. I found this site: http://historicphotoarchive.com/f2/kodachrome.html that states "Kodachrome was introduced in professional sizes September 1938. 2.25 x 3.25", 3.25 x 4.25", 4x5", 5x7", 8x10" & 11x14". Sheet film sizes were discontuned in April 1951."

And this site http://www.kodachromeproject.com/forum/showthread.php?t=306 says "PKR in 120 format was made from 1986 to 1996, and the last processing run was carried out in 2001."

In my collection I have a few 3X4 Kodachrome portraits I got in a lot of photo equipment. They are in a box with a mailing date in the late 1940s so I'm guessing that is about when they were shot and processed. The colors still look wonderful.

Len

 

[mopar_guy]

I've been curious myself when sheet Kodachrome stopped being produced. I found this site: http://historicphotoarchive.com/f2/kodachrome.html that states "Kodachrome was introduced in professional sizes September 1938. 2.25 x 3.25", 3.25 x 4.25", 4x5", 5x7", 8x10" & 11x14". Sheet film sizes were discontuned in April 1951."

And this site http://www.kodachromeproject.com/forum/showthread.php?t=306 says "PKR in 120 format was made from 1986 to 1996, and the last processing run was carried out in 2001."

In my collection I have a few 3X4 Kodachrome portraits I got in a lot of photo equipment. They are in a box with a mailing date in the late 1940s so I'm guessing that is about when they were shot and processed. The colors still look wonderful.

Len

Len, are the 3x4 Kodachromes that you have transparencies or are they positives that are printed on a white acetate base?

 

[Len Robertson]

Len, are the 3x4 Kodachromes that you have transparencies or are they positives that are printed on a white acetate base?

As far as I can tell, these are original Kodachrome transparencies. They all have "Eastman Safety" in the black border around the image, and sheet film notches on one edge. They may be somewhat older than I thought. They came in a very battered original Kodachrome 3X4 sheet film box with a mailing label from the photographer in Conn. to the EKC Kodachrome Processing Dept. in Rochester When he mailed the box to Kodak he used four 3 cent stamps that show an eagle with wings raised so it looks like a V and the motto "Win The War" printed across. Of course these war time postage stamps could have been used long after the end of WWII. The year of cancellation on the stamps isn't readable.

Len

 

[Arklatexian]

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

For many years, the National Geographic used mostly Kodachrome from the earliest, ISO/ASA 8 until the last ISO/ASA 25. While I, of course, was never one of their photographers, I used Kodachrome from the end of World War 2 until changing to Agfachrome, Iso/ASA 50 during the 1950s. Early Ektachromes, processed in most commercial labs were really bad about fading almost to clear film after a short period of time. As to color print film at about the same time, even film that I sent to Kodak for processing had a life of about 6 or 7 years before losing color. Sometimes all of its color. Of course things got better later. For color work, most professionals used transpariency film starting, around here with LF Kodachrome and later Ektachromes. Until the advent of Digital, most publications and other color ink users required transpariencies to make their color plates from. Well that takes us up to about 2000 and I fear that I have written too much on my first try. Regards to all.

 

[Arklatexian]

I cannot help with 120 and sheet film, but Kodachrome was available in quite a few other sizes besides 35mm.

126, 828, 110 and a few movie formats come to mind.

Don't remember any 126 and 110 Kodachrome down here, but I have sold Kodachrome 828 for use in the Kodak Bantam cameras. We had several customers with Bantam Specials. Pre WW2 cameras with f:2 lenses. And, of course we sold lots of 8mm and some 16mm Kodachrome....Regards

 

[longknives]

I somewhat remember back in the day, back when Simon & Garfunkel sang about "Don't take my Kodachrome away" I believe I was twentysomthing back then, actually I was! and I was all about 35mm then because medium format was way outta my reach at the time and the next top was South East Asia and I never thought I would ever be as old as my current film format at that time. I had a small bathroom darkroom and dabbled around a bit and even processed some color portraits of the family, brutally primitive at the time what with trying to get the filters right and rolling the print in the drum and watching the timer, very laborious process.
Fast forward to today and I'm about to double that old age format soon. Recently I have aquirred a Yashica Mat 124 that needs some repair and just today a Mamiya RB67 Pro SD that is good to go, even though I still have one foot in the digital world, I very much look forward to my return to the world of film and the realm of MF.
EDIT;
Just realized this this thread was about pro's which I was not then or even now, just an older enthusiast.

 

[NJH]

Thanks all this has been a fantastic thread. I recently started shooting E6 again, Xmas my local lab tells me he is processing E6 every day if anything its the c-41 they seem to do the least off.

 

[Maris]

Back in my "olden" days film was no more than the thing that transported the image from the back of the studio camera down to the print shop where the separation plates were made. The objective was wholly and solely the production of industrial quantities of printed illustration. I always shot colour transparency film so I could get paid promptly. The art directors (and assistants) I encountered couldn't read colour negatives so they wouldn't ok the job and pay my fee until stuff was rolling off the presses. That could take ages. With colour trannies they could see the shoot was good and straight away phone accounts and tell them to pay me.

Technically colour negs were better; financially colour trannies ruled.

 

[cliveh]

Back in my "olden" days film was no more than the thing that transported the image from the back of the studio camera down to the print shop where the separation plates were made. The objective was wholly and solely the production of industrial quantities of printed illustration. I always shot colour transparency film so I could get paid promptly. The art directors (and assistants) I encountered couldn't read colour negatives so they wouldn't ok the job and pay my fee until stuff was rolling off the presses. That could take ages. With colour trannies they could see the shoot was good and straight away phone accounts and tell them to pay me.

Technically colour negs were better; financially colour trannies ruled.

I'm not sure colour negs were better, as most scanner operators I have spoken with preferred colour transparency film.

 

[randyB]

Paul Simon sang "Don't take my Kodachrome away", good song and a great album.

I somewhat remember back in the day, back when Simon & Garfunkel sang about "Don't take my Kodachrome away" I believe I was twentysomthing back then, actually I was! and I was all about 35mm then because medium format was way outta my reach at the time and the next top was South East Asia and I never thought I would ever be as old as my current film format at that time. I had a small bathroom darkroom and dabbled around a bit and even processed some color portraits of the family, brutally primitive at the time what with trying to get the filters right and rolling the print in the drum and watching the timer, very laborious process.
Fast forward to today and I'm about to double that old age format soon. Recently I have aquirred a Yashica Mat 124 that needs some repair and just today a Mamiya RB67 Pro SD that is good to go, even though I still have one foot in the digital world, I very much look forward to my return to the world of film and the realm of MF.
EDIT;
Just realized this this thread was about pro's which I was not then or even now, just an older enthusiast.