Why was Verichrome a B&W Film?

Is any of this important?

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Is any of this important?

PE

Click to expand...

:munch: :munch: :munch: :munch: :munch:

Steve

Photo Engineer said:

Is any of this important?

PE

Click to expand...

To the OP and others yes, a history of photography in itself must also encompass the major innovations of which Verichrome & particularly Autochrome are significant.

Ian

I submit to you then the proposition that the formulas of said films and the chronology of the formulas is far far more important than the naming conventions. Even the speed conversions and exact spectral sensitivities are more important.

I don't see any of that!

PE

Ian Grant said:

Autocrome was a Colour Reversal film/Reversal Colour film, although it used B&W Reversal processing

So Autochrome started the tradition for the use of Chrome for Colour transparencies.

Ian

Click to expand...

I would think calling one film a *chrome does not establish a tradition, it's the third or fourth colour reversal film name ending in chrome that makes it a tradition. The real question is, does chrome in this case mean anything, like perhaps a shortened form of chromogenic?

Dufaycolor film was an early color reversal film using "color" in the name. Kodacolor was an early reversal color film that did the same. Agfacolor was another.

It took years for the "chrome" and "color" usage to settle out. I think that the driving force was probably Kodak.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Dufaycolor film was an early color reversal film using "color" in the name. Kodacolor was an early reversal color film that did the same. Agfacolor was another.

It took years for the "chrome" and "color" usage to settle out. I think that the driving force was probably Kodak.

PE

Click to expand...

Products and product names were not organized or consistant in the early years of photography. In addition to the "-chrome" and "-color" inconsistancies, film sizes and photograph size on those film sizes were not standardized. Eastman Kodak started a standardization of film size by assigning numbers to its products, these numbers are with us today as 135 for 35mm and 120 for ... well 120 film. Furthermore, aperature openings were not standardized - there were several standards used before the present f/stop systems was universally adopted.

Steve

In case anybody was wondering about the OP, (your humble servitor, myself) I got my answer around page 2.

In 2005!

My how time passes when you're having fun....

Photo Engineer said:

I submit to you then the proposition that the formulas of said films and the chronology of the formulas is far far more important than the naming conventions. Even the speed conversions and exact spectral sensitivities are more important.

I don't see any of that!

PE

Click to expand...

I can't say whether those are more important, but personally I find the naming conventions interesting. They are a part of the culture of photography, both on the production side (where a few of you have been) and on the consumer side (where all of us have been).

I also find the naming conventions of photographic hardware interesting, especially the way they flowed across languages and continents.

Now, if I only knew how some of those company names were pronounced.

Well said.

PE was well out of order in his comments, you can't have one without the other.

Who's Kodak ?

Ian

Ian;

That was my point. We have all of one and none of the other. There is no balance.

PE

Ron, to go forward you have to be aware of the past and the history.

Our problem is we can't access the manufacturing formulae for any films or plates, but we can access the processing formulae, and the product history.

It would be amazing to see how emulsions changed & improved but that data is not made public, although inn the UK it must be in various archives somewhere for compaies not taken over.

Ian

Well, he who does not know history is doomed to repeat it. That saying is quite old IIRC and I agree. Here in the US, George Eastman House has George Eastman's notebooks with original formulas. IDK about the UK.

However, it goes beyond that. We do not have the active gelatins and things like that and there are few people who know how to translate the formula to oxidized gelatin. I am working on that right now. But there is more. How many know that Agfa Lupex and Kodak Azo papers were almost identical. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Lodima is actually a derivative of Lupex.

So, we are all in danger of losing a large segment of our history and yet we do not concentrate on the formulas. You say you have the BIOS reports, how about printing some of the formulas with product names attached?

PE

Photo Engineer said:

How many know that Agfa Lupex and Kodak Azo papers were almost identical. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Lodima is actually a derivative of Lupex.
PE

Click to expand...

And we have to ask why are they almost identical, and there will be (or is) a very good reason.

Can you explain it ? They aren't almost identical by chance !

Ian

The laws of science dictate how a pure chloride will have to be made. It seems though that in the more complex formulas there is quite a bit more variation until we get to modern emulsions which are vastly different from company to company. So with old formulas, there is not much room for wiggle there but with modern formulas there is a lot of variation.

So that one is easy, but how about the BIOS formulas Ian? Can you post a few? Those old ones should be of interest here.

PE

I'm more interested in the Agfa Ansco data that Kodak was given free access to by the US Government in 1942. Lupex would have been in the mix.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

I'm more interested in the Agfa Ansco data that Kodak was given free access to by the US Government in 1942. Lupex would have been in the mix.

Ian

Click to expand...

Ian;

After thinking about this, I have to say that I am not aware of this happening and would have to say that I would use the words "was reported to have been given free access".......

In point of fact, the Azo formula was coexistant or may have even predated Lupex, and in any event the two formulas were comprised of basically 3 ingredients, NaCl, AgNO3 and Gelatin. The differences were in time at a given temperature and this is not a hard one to work out. So, kissing cousins or fraternal twins the Kodak product was not derived from the Ansco product. They came out of physical laws and chemical laws and were developed in isolation. GMTA as the old saying goes.

To my knowledge, Kodak and Agfa used different hardeners in the overcoat and different antioxidants, but that is about it.

But this begs the central issue. You said that you had the BIOS reports. Why not share them with us? I had to use my Kodabromide / Brovira knowledge from memory to get to my enlarging paper formula. Do you have anything to contribute?

How about film formulas connected with some of these historical names? I don't have them, but you have hinted that you might.

Thanks.

PE