72 year old Kodachrome transparencies

[Chuck(G)]

Sometimes, the old technology really was very good. A friend sent me a link to this site. Just amazing...

 

[Unknown_K]

Nice link (love the WW2 pictures). Another thing I found cool for that era was analog computers (bomb sights, targeting deviced for machine guns or battleship cannons, etc.). Do you know when the peak of analog photography/film was? I kind of wonder what digital photography will be like in 50 years.

 

[TomFCS]

Wow! Those are awesome. Crystal clear, vibrant colors. Can't wait to show my Dad. (WWII veteran) He's gonna love these!

 

[IBMMuseum]

Sometimes, the old technology really was very good. A friend sent me a link to this site. Just amazing...

Thank You for the link, the last one (truly almost 72 years old, from September 1940) is close to home:

There's at least another color photo of the same family, with the older children. Lawrence Whinery, the young child in this photo, died just four years later. Other photos show outside the "dugout", and around the community.

As captioned for the photograph, the Farm Security Administration had photographer Russell Lee take about 600 photos (most black & white) in Pie Town to document some of the poor during the Great Depression, the collection is now held in the Library of Congress...

EDIT: In reality, all they would have had to do is wait to sell that Coke poster...

It goes rather well with me digging through the 1940 Federal Census recently, and separately getting an old photo (B&W) that has been in the family to scan tonight, showing Grandpa with his B-17 crew...

 

[DOS lives on!!]

That's very clear, especially being able to bring such vibrant colors to very old slides. That gives a whole new perspective of life back then.

 

[angel_grig]

Another great site is this:http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
You can see absolute fantastic color photos from 1910 when color film was not even invented!By using 3 negatives (green-blue-red) the Russian photographer obtained fantastic color images like this one:

 

[Maverick1978]

To me, these look more life-like than any digital camera produces today. I've often wondered with the convenience of cell-phone cameras taking place of most photos today, where photography will be in another 10 years, let alone 50 years.

People just don't care about quality anymore... they've given it up all for the sake of convenience. I've family photos from the 1930's that held their detail levels 1000x better than photos taken of my brother and I as toddlers (~32 years ago), and I don't think anyone in my family has anything other than shoddy digital photography in the last 10 years. Sad. Truly sad.

 

[Stone]

There's one thing that must not be overlooked here. Kodachrome was the highest quality film ever produced by Kodak. Kodachrome is slide film and is not at all similar in quality to the standard color negative film of its day, Kodacolor. Kodachrome is a slow, fine-grained positive film and what you are seeing here is the evidence that it is far superior to it's color negative counterpart. As a former pro photographer I well knew that if I wanted the best on-the-job results that I needed to use Kodachrome, and not the color negative film or even the high-speed Ektachrome, another Kodak slide film. Nothing comes close to the Kodachrome quality. What do you think the old color movies were shot on?

 

[Chuck(G)]

In my reply to my friend who sent me the link, I added that you probably won't find Ektachromes half as old that look as good as these--they're probably very blue by now. Even old Autochromes are still very presentable--and many are over 100 years old.

On the photo at the top that I posted, note the incredible shadow detail (the various bits and pieces of kit along the back wall). Kodachrome was a fabulous film with a very long scale.

 

[Agent Orange]

Here's a Kodachrome slide of a Navy F9F-5 trainer setting on line line at Naval Auxiliary Air Station Kingsville, Texas. I took this shot in the spring of 1958 with an Argus camera. Not too professional, but I was only 17 at the time. This slide, and many like it, had been misplaced for years. The slides were all covered in mold, but cleaned up fairly well. I would say it's a testament to Kodak's technology of the day. BTW, this slide was scanned in via a Canon 950 printer/scanner. (This particular aircraft is the single-seat fighter F9F that was actually flown off carriers in Korea - used when the trainee advanced far enough to fly solo in the training syllabus).

View attachment 8500

 

[xprt]

Great pictures.

My dad is an amateur photographer and has thousands of slides in a closet somewhere from 50 years of world travelling, all Kodachrome 64. He said it was the best for retaining color.

The original website http://www.shorpy.com/image/tid/179 states that "images you see here have been adjusted by the Webmaster for color and contrast", and they are mostly 4 x 5 transparencies.

Doing some calculations .. based on this site http://cool.conservation-us.org/byauth/vitale/digital-projection/, Kodachrome has a resolution of about 2500 ppi, so a 4 x 5 inch transparency is about 125 mega-pixels. But the pictures you are looking at are only about 3 megapixels full size on the web. So the originals are even sharper.

 

[Compgeke]

Ok...these are awesome, is there any film of comparable quality today?

 

[Stone]

I haven't used film in quite some time but if I were to I would try this one: KODAK PROFESSIONAL ELITE Chrome Extra Color 100 Film

 

[GADFRAN]

FYI – if you are interested and may not know -

Sadly, Kodak has recently filed for bankruptcy – just missed the trend to digital photography, of course among many other factors. Typical of many companies facing the complexities of global science, technology and society [STS] that I have been doing research on for decades.

As many of us know – many of the early computer companies suffered similar situations [e.g. Osborne, Kaypro and even IBM in many ways – e.g. Lenovo].

==================================================================

I visited their museum in NY years ago and it is very impressive how it all started from the simple box type camera “Brownie.”

Yes, what will digital pictures be like even in the next few years ?

Recently, the local Walmart said they may get one film order to be processed a month from someone who found an old film camera and was curious what the pictures were on the film. Just a few years ago, many local Walmarts had extensive on site developing facilities that were just booming !.

==================================================================

Since the late 1970’s, I must have taken over 10,000 Kodachrome colored slides for my many research projects, including STS, using an Olympus OM-2 – it actually started to wear out and had to be repaired several times..

What is amazing is that even scanning them today with a Canon scanner that does about 4 at a time, the results are still very close to what they were originally.

Using an old Kodak slide projector of course is even better.

I am converting many to digital for my PowerPoint presentations now of course. Some of these slides are just “priceless” for the people and events they depict, many from the very beginning of the Eastern USA small wine industry.

================================================================

Kodachrome always had that “ warm “ effect – orange / red / yellow, etc. that I liked, compared to Ektachrome more blue/ green / cold.

Similar colored slides from several other film companies [e.g. Agfa – some said the best at that time] have long since gone to that washed out “sepia” / maroon, faded, etc. colors.

Prints of course are much worse due to age.

By the way, they were just stored in just a modest heated / cooled / dehumidified basement all those years.

Frank

P.S.

Of course now there are not all those chemicals involved with film processing, especially expensive silver of course – BTW I am a retired chemist and the developing process is fascinating !

 

[Ole Juul]

Kodachrome always had that “ warm “ effect – orange / red / yellow, etc. that I liked, compared to Ektachrome more blue/ green / cold.


Of course now there are not all those chemicals involved with film processing, especially expensive silver of course – BTW I am a retired chemist and the developing process is fascinating !

I wish I had your knowledge. Ignorance never stopped me though. Plain D25 was my all time favourite. I've still got a lot of chemicals, including metol, packed away but will probably never revisit that part of my life. Playing with the chemistry is a bit like open source software and it puts the user in control. It's not really comparable to digital photography. I do miss the many hours in the darkroom and that delicate slightly vinigary fragrance that permeates the whole experience.

I've been a big Kodachrome fan too, having taken many thousands of slides with that. The saturation was superb, and you could actually know exactly what you were going to get back from their lab too. It simply was the best, although the Ektachrome tungsten was indispensable when using lights. Sadly, I've lost all my Nikon cameras and lenses. Although I realize that equipment isn't the deciding factor in photographs, I still cling to my last decent camera which is a little B&J 4x5 press camera. I had hoped to continue my photography with black and white sheet film, but where I live now I'm on a septic, so decent processing is not easy, if even possible.

Kodak was indeed quite a classy company before they started going downhill. I remember writing to them to ask a technical question, and getting back data sheets and a detailed reply from their lab department. What a classy service they had back then!

 

[Tiberian Fiend]

The colors used in pre-war fabrics and paints seemed much more subdued than in modern times. Was this due to the pigmentation technology of the time or was it just the fashion?

 

[Ole Juul]

The colors used in pre-war fabrics and paints seemed much more subdued than in modern times. Was this due to the pigmentation technology of the time or was it just the fashion?

That's a very interesting comment to me because it seems to imply the possibility of a change in visual perception of our culture over time. First, I believe that both your suggestions are correct. What you see is a result of both technology and fashion. However what you perceive is arguable. I perceive those colours as being much richer and not the least bit subdued. Has there been a change in perception of colour over time? I think so. Those colours were "exciting" to designers at the time. I don't know how they would have viewed our contemporary dye palette, but the so called vivid colours of modern sports dress are very empty, I might say "wishy washy", by comparison. They lack richness and thus are subdued in another sense than what you were probably thinking about.

I first started to think about this effect a little while ago when CFL lamps started to come out. Now, in their present stage of development I see them as bright when I look directly at them, but relatively dim in their ability to light up a room. I finally figured it out. I am historically sensitized to the more red spectrum of the incandescents, and the bluer light of the CFL is not stimulating me as much.

 

[Chuck(G)]

Remember that most of what we wear today involves synthetic fibers or at least a mixture of natural and synthetic. Some synthetic fabrics can take on brilliant colors--some of my oldest aloha shirts from the 70s were printed on rayon or acetate (illegal today because of fire danger). Silk used to be one of the only natural fabrics that would take bright colors. (Synthetic dyes have been around since the mid 19th century, but women's nylons didn't come into being until 1940).

 

[Tor]

Coincidentally this thread started just at a time when I had started to get nostalgic about Kodachrome (as its production stopped some time ago). I have recently come back to SLR photography, this time digital. In the seventies/eighties I did a lot of photographing, and Kodachrome was my preference although I would use Ektachrome when I wanted something more blue.

Kodachrome was a fabulous film with a very long scale.

Exactly! I've been talking a lot of photos with my new semi-pro dSLR, and although it's a _great_ camera to work with and the technology is incredible compared to my old non-d SLRs I quickly noticed that even this camera (I've used digital compact cameras for some years now) isn't near the dynamic range I could coax out of the old film. I'm now seriously considering getting a polarizing filter for my camera just to avoid the sky going white just because I need to get details out of the shadows. I _never_ saw the need for such a filter back in the film day, although I were fully aware of them and of what they could do. And I will investigate HDR techniques, where the camera takes, say, 3 shots, with different settings, and then a program on the PC can stack them together later to create a composite image with details in the shadows as well as in the highlights (some high-end compacts/bridge cameras can apparently do this on the fly, taking 2 pictures with different apertures and stacking them).

-Tor

 

[Ole Juul]

. . . although I would use Ektachrome when I wanted something more blue.

That's one use, but it's intended for use with a specific tungsten colour temperature. Often used for art reproduction using lights which is why I used to get it.

Exactly! I've been talking a lot of photos with my new semi-pro dSLR, and although it's a _great_ camera to work with and the technology is incredible compared to my old non-d SLRs I quickly noticed that even this camera (I've used digital compact cameras for some years now) isn't near the dynamic range I could coax out of the old film.

I've got $500 camera (but 5 years old now) and it is pathetic. With film I was able to capture anything in a way that would be useful. Now I can't. When a wide range is needed, I just have to say that I can't do it. Of course, never say never. I could do it with a tripod and taking two pictures at different exposures and then overlaying them later. That's a lot of work compared to film though.

I'm now seriously considering getting a polarizing filter for my camera just to avoid the sky going white just because I need to get details out of the shadows. I _never_ saw the need for such a filter back in the film day, although I were fully aware of them and of what they could do.

Get one. I can't easily stick a filter on my camera and I can't understand why these are not built into all digital cameras. Only certain shots can be gotten with any real saturation if you don't have one. Water, sky, leaves, metallic objects, on and on, just don't do well if you are outside. My next camera must have this capability.

And I will investigate HDR techniques, where the camera takes, say, 3 shots, with different settings, and then a program on the PC can stack them together later to create a composite image with details in the shadows as well as in the highlights (some high-end compacts/bridge cameras can apparently do this on the fly, taking 2 pictures with different apertures and stacking them).

Ha! I thought I was clever when I wrote the above. I see they're on it. I'll look forward to that technology becoming affordable.