This is topic Old color films never fade away! in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000142
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-12-2003, 08:21 PM:
Since most classic films are now seen on home video, I thought I this would be a great place to discuss this topic.
Thanks to black and white seperation negatives and the inhibition printing process, the color films made during Hollywood's golden era can be enjoyed today with almost all of the brilliant color still intact. What a joy it was to see the classic 1939 Technicolor film, "GONE WITH THE WIND" a few years ago on the large screen shown the way it was first presented with a brand new dye transfer print. I was only four months old when the film opened in Atlanta in December 1939 and could not have witnessed the first showings of the film but I did get to see it when it was re released about ten years later in vibrant Technicolor. When I saw it again on the big screen a few years ago at the Cinerama Theatre again in dye transfer. It was just as gorgeous as the first time I saw it. Other Technicolor film were just as impressive during their theatrical showings including "FANTASIA", THE WIZARD OF OZ" and "SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON".
Many of these old Technicolor films are now showing up on home video and they are beautiful! Two great examples are the Criterion release of "BLACK NARCISSUS" and "THE RED SHOES". Others include all of the films I had already mentioned. Not only are the original films shot in three strip Technicolor wonderful but so are the ones that were shot in Eastman Color with black & white seperation backups. "THE CAINE MUTINY" I saw last week on DVD was a classic example of how beautiful a film could look when the video master was made from the seperation negatives. It was only due to the availability of seperation negatives, Robert Harris was able to restore films like "SPARTACUS" because of the very poor condition pf the original Technirama camera negatives. Although it was recently reported that the original negatives for "AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS" was still usable, I doubt prints made from them would be as vibrant as the original. There is a classic example what can happen when there is no seperation backup. I am not sure if the Japanese knew about preserving films with seperation negatives but non was made from the original Eastman Color negatives of "JIGOKUMON" (GATE OF HELL) . The film won an Academy Award in 1954 as Best Foreign Film of the year and one of the things that made this film unique was it's very striking color photography. I saw the film at the Kukusai Gekijyo in Honolulu during it's firstrun and was very impressed with it's beautiful color photography. When I saw the film again on PBS television about ten years ago, the print was in bad shape and a comment was made that the color was lost to the ages. Sadly, A lot of other wonderful films that was photographed in Eastman Color with no seperation backups after the fifties have also been lost. With new movies now preserved in the digital domain and the use of low fade negative and print materials introduced by Eastman Kodak, films made today have a bright future both in theatres and home video. It is the early color films that were photographed on color negative material in the fifties and sixties that are fading away and more effort should be made to save them for future generations to enjoy!
-Claude
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-12-2003, 08:33 PM:
The advantages of proper film storage conditions in extending the life of both film base and color dyes are well known:
http://www.rit.edu/~661www1/sub_pages/8contents.htm
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/storage1.shtml
Kodak Preserving Our Heritage
http://www.fpchollywood.com/protek.html
Storage conditions for short, medium, and long term preservation are specified by SMPTE Recommended Practice RP131 and by ISO standards.
Proper washing during processing to remove residual chemicals (e.g., thiosulfate) and adjust the film emulsion to the proper pH is also very important:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/processing/h24.shtml
B&W silver separations are now made on Kodak Panchromatic Separation Film 2238:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2238.shtml
[ 05-23-2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: John Pytlak ]
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 05-21-2003, 05:52 PM:
The problem of color negative fading is greatly exaggerated.
When people like Scorcese adressed the problem of color preservation in the late 1970s, many people began thinking that every color movie is doomed to fade.
All archivists, collectors and film handlers know the pink, red or pale POSITIVE prints, but very few people ever saw a faded color negative. I discussed this with friends who have 10 to 38 years of film lab experience, and they do a good deal of reprints from 35mm color negative shot in the 1950s to 1980s.
Apart from very early Agfa color negative, they NEVER encountered one foot of that notorious negative "with all color gone". Even color neg that had Vinegar Syndrome had not changed its color.
A 1954 VistaVision negative demo clip that was stored in an acidic paper/cardboard environment was printed to new positive stock and had perfect colors!
The reasons are sometimes obvious: A company here in Germany raved about their great digital color restoration process, but they used a faded Agfa positive print - NOT the original camera negative, which was available and (I suspect) not faded at all.
Just tonight I saw a brand new print from a Eastman color camera negative, the film was made in 1964 and had highly saturated colors, fine grain and no sign of fading (except for a few shots that were duped for dissolves and other opticals).
There are many reasons to believe that NEGATIVE fading is not the serious problem some people would like us to think. However, it is difficult to prove because you need access to the original materil to confirm what some self-proclaimed preservationists tell us.
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-21-2003, 10:45 PM:
There have been plenty of films restored without the use of Black and white seperates. They were often times not properly prepared and proper alignment became difficult to achieve. Usually the seperations for Eastman color negatives are used as a last resort. From what I understand from reading much information from Harris, very little of SPARTACUS was restored from the use of the seperations. Recent prints from 60's ON's have shown that new prints can look quite good off them. It's the dupe stocks used for opticals that really show damage (grainy, washed out, etc.)
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-22-2003, 02:05 AM:
On the contrary Paul, from what I had read in a Prerfect Vision Magazine article, Mr Harris had stated that the elements used WAS the seperation elements for the restoration work on "SPARTACUS" because the original negatives had faded very badly and could not be used. I would also like to differ with the comments made by Christian but due to the lateness of the hour, I will address them first thing tomorrow morning.
-Claude
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-22-2003, 02:08 AM:
quote:
The problem of color negative fading is greatly exaggerated.
I think that's too much of a generalisation. There are a lot of variables which affect fading: the emulsion type (and sometimes individual batches of the same emulsion type are more prone to fading than others), the sort of use an element has had during its lifetime and of course storage conditions. If I had to hazard a guess I would cite storage conditions as the biggest single factor, and certainly the only significant one over which we now have any control.
I have come across various degrees of fading in negative, fine grain positive, CRI and release print elements. Most archivists would agree that '60s and '70s Eastmancolor is especially prone to fading, hence Scorsese's campaign. I have seen too many 1990s prints contact struck from '60s and '70s internegs to believe that negatives are more resistant to positives per se.
As for early Agfacolor, only last month I saw an original 35mm diacetate print of Kolberg (1945) projected and the colour balance looked almost as good as an IB print to me. If anything there was a very slight blueish cast, but other than that the colours had held up extremely well.
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-22-2003, 06:47 PM:
Claude,
Very little of the seperation masters were used for Harris' restoration of Spartacus due to the different amounts of shrinkage each strip encountered.
The Perfect Vision is a consumer-driven magazine which is not necessarily the best place to derive the most complete and correct technical information about film technology.
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-23-2003, 12:50 AM:
Paul,
I will have to agree with you about the Perfect Vision magazine being a consumer driven magazine but I am only referring to the one that had replaced the original publication. The original Perfect Vision was more of a journal about films and high end video than a routine home video publication which the the later publication turned out to be. The new Perfect Vision magazine was a terrible magazine but the Perfect Vision Journal was excellent!. Part of the unique thing about the original journal was the very few ads it featured. This might have been the reason it died. The new magazine was different. It was full of advertisments and the articles were very uninteresting!
This is what the Perfect Vision reported in the Spring 1991 edition regarding Rober Harris's effort to restore "SPARTUCAS" ---
"SPARTACUS" was shot on Eastman negative and the vault inspection confirmed Robert Harris's worst scenerio. THE ORIGINAL NEGATIVES WAS GONE! From what he could tell, it had held for 25 years. Than around 83/'84, it had begun to fade.The yellow layer deteriorated turning the color of the negative from it's normal orange to a lavender blue. A print struck from it would have no blacks.They would now be blue-and the facial highlights would be bright yellow. It would also lose all contrast. There was no way to save or correct the yellow layer. In addition, all of the B negative trims and outtakes has been junked in the mid seventies along with all the original dialogue tracks and effects tracks. Only the music tracks were saved. How could Harris restore "SPARTACUS" if the original negative was gone? THE SEPERATIONS WAS ALL THAT WAS LEFT" The article continues and explains about the B&W seperation process and how it was used to restore "SPARTACUS". Paul, please keep in mind that all of the comments by the author of the article were based on Mr Harris"s findings. If the article was not correct, I am sure, Mr. Harris would have come forward with corrected facts in the following edition of the Perfect Vision journal. He did not! I do agree about the fade factor regarding color negative film. With my long experiance working with color professional negative film as a professional image maker for almost forty years, I do know what I am talking about!! With the exception of the low fade negative material the Eastman Kodak Company made available to the motion picture industry and to the commercial and portrait still photographers in the eighties, all of my color negatives I had exposed in the sixties and the seventies are gone or almost gone!. The negatives were all processed by the finest professional labs in California and were stored in a air conditioned room but they still faded. I too have a friend who also worked for a professional motion picture lab. Fred Ishihara worked for the motion picture division of Technicolor before being assigned to their still photography division and unlike what your friend told you, Fred told me about the studio's concern about their original Eastman color negatives and films of the fifties when they started to fade. I can very well attest to the fact that films made at that time had faded when the DVD I bought and watched last week of the 1954 film, "BATTLE CRY" was struck from a very badly faded color negative. There was no contrast and the color was very pale. Another DVD of a film made in the fifties also from a faded negative was "IMITATION OF LIFE". It too looked like garbage! Like the Academy Award winning Japanese film, "GATE OF HELL" I reported in my first post, all original Eastman Color films made in the fifties had faded away if they were not backed up by seperation negatives.I recall Fred telling me about the few studios in Hollywood that bothered with seperations with all their pictures in the fifties. Two of the studios that did care about the preservation of their old films with B&W seperations were Disney and MGM. Notice how gorgeous all the old MGM and Disney's classics from the fifties look on DVD?
-Claude
[ 05-23-2003, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: Claude S. Ayakawa ]
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-23-2003, 07:04 AM:
I don't know if they still do, but for a long time Disney used the sequential frame system: a modified Bell & Howell 2709 as a rostrum camera which exposed the Y, C and M record of each animation cel onto three consecutive frames of a single strip of b/w negative. From these the camera originals combined EK negatives and printing matrices were produced.
So given that the camera original was b/w, there wouldn't have been any need to produce preservation elements to guard against fading. There would, of course, to guard against nitrate decomposition and/or deacetylation, though.
[Edited to remove typo]
[ 05-23-2003, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Leo Enticknap ]
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-23-2003, 08:43 AM:
quote:
There would, of course, to guard against nitrate decomposition and/or acetylation, though.
Almost all B&W silver image separations on Kodak Panchromatic Separation Film 2238 and color preservation masters on Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film 2242 are now made on very stable ESTAR (polyethylene terephthalate) base films:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2238.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/5242.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/baseP.shtml
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-23-2003, 11:04 AM:
And I suppose it would theoretically be possible to use poly stock in a rostrum camera: given that it's only clicking slowly through a frame at a time, the risk of it jamming in the mechanism is virtually nil.
But I would have thought that nowadays Disney probably does everything by computer and then outputs the finished 'film' to a tripack camera negative using a laser film recorder.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-23-2003, 11:16 AM:
quote:
But I would have thought that nowadays Disney probably does everything by computer and then outputs the finished 'film' to a tripack camera negative using a laser film recorder.
Even with the excellent long-term stability of ESTAR base Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film (properly processed and stored, of course), B&W silver separations are still an important part of any preservation strategy.
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 05-23-2003, 07:40 PM:
Claude,
in his book PROFESSIONAL CINEMATOGRAPHY Charles G. Clarke, ASC, mentions a japanese film that was praised for its colors. I think that he refers to GATE OF HELL. The colors, according to Mr Clarke, resulted from underexposure. After a small number of release prints the camera negative was considered unprintable because it was so "thin" that any scratch or blemish would show up in printing.
I suppose that a very thin negative should also suffer more from changing dyes.
To put in more precisely than in my first post:
I did NOT mean to deny that there is such a thing as color fading in Eastman negative. But I am certain that the problem is not as severe as some people tell us, for whatever reasons.
Original film elements face many dangers: They are forgotten, stored under wrong condition or simply get thrown away. But when a number of lab experts say they hardly ever get to see faded Eastman negative, this is something to think about.
You will have noticed that even with well known preservationists stories about the condition of a certain film will vary and change over the years. "All multi-layer color neg is doomed", says the expert. Five years later, he claims that only Eastman stock will fade finally. Another four years later, only a certain type of Eastman stock is the problem.
I cannot help noticing the changes in what we are told about color fading. It`s printed, it`s on the web. Why this happens I do not know, but I am getting suspicious when someone raves about digital film restoration and how it will cope with all those films that are going to fade within months and could be saved by their new XYZ restoration software.
The best claim I heard from a person pitching the "Lumiere" film restoration package went like this:
"Just put in all that old garbage, and then after some number-crunching, you can output clean, professional footage".
Yeah, that "old garbage"...
In short, color fading surely exists, but IMHO not to the extent some experts claim.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-23-2003, 09:31 PM:
I was under the impression that we tend to see greater fading problems with Eastmancolor prints than with original camera negative because the prints tend to be stored in sub-optimal conditions (film depots, homes, etc.) while negative elements tend to be stored in vaults with proper temperature and humidity controls.
Is this correct, or is there something specific to the dyes used in Eastman color negative stock which is significantly different than the dyes used in the (pre-LPP) print stock?
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-23-2003, 11:39 PM:
There have been some wonderful film prints made off ON's of the sixties (those properly preserved, of course). Hello Dolly, Patton, come to mind. And while 2001 was not made off the ON for the re-release, from what I understand seperations were used for only a very few shots. Also, for Lawrence of Arabia, the seperations were used in instances where the original negative was torn. And that film looks spectacular.
No one is saying that Eastman negative stock faded with time, or that making seperations are an important back-up to the preservation process. But they are not always usuable due to being improperly prepared or due to shrinkage. There are other ways of boosting up color values of many (not saying all) fading negatives).
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-23-2003, 11:48 PM:
Hello Christian,
In my original post, I had mentioned that I did get to see "JIGOKUMON" (Gate of Hell) in a Japanese studio theatre here in Hawaii during it's first run when the film was new. The print quality was just exquisite. The film had very nice color saturation with very deep blacks. As a professional photographer I have accidently underexposed many color negatives and the prints I got from them looked very bad. From your description of the original negative, there is no way a very gorgeous film like, "GATE OF HELL" was printed from underexposed negatives. Who ever made that statement that the film became unprintable because the negatives were underexposed causing premature dye fading as a result did not know what he was saying. The problem with early Eastman Color was the process itself and the improper manner the negatives and print were stored because the people who were responsible for the storage was not aware of any problems until the damage was done.
-Claude
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-24-2003, 07:55 AM:
quote:
Is this correct, or is there something specific to the dyes used in Eastman color negative stock which is significantly different than the dyes used in the (pre-LPP) print stock?
Release prints are usually stored in warehouse-like conditions, not in properly conditioned areas that are cool and low humidity.
Color negative films use totally different types of dye-forming couplers than color print films. For example, negative films use colored couplers that create a positive "mask" to enhance color reproduction --- the reason color negatives have an orange color. The ECP-2D print process also uses a different color developer (CD-2) than the ECN-2 negative process (CD-3).
As I noted, there are literally hundreds of different couplers, and image-stability is only one of many factors that determine the best couplers to use in any given film.
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-24-2003, 09:38 AM:
Apparently, exposure can have something to do with long-term stability. From what I've read, one of the factors that helped with the "Lawrence of Arabia" restoration was the fact that Freddie Young produced a very dense negative. I'm speculating, but does it make sense that if a negative has lots of density (and therefore lots of color) that it can still produce acceptable prints because whatever dye loss occurs is less percentage-wise than that which would happen to a thinner negative?
In a 1981 article on color restoration in American Cinematographer, there was a mention that Disney wanted to make new prints from the 1956 "The Great Locomotive Chase," but the original negative had faded to the point where no acceptable prints could be struck. They had to go to the separations.
[ 05-24-2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Hillary Charles ]
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-24-2003, 05:18 PM:
Hillary,
The negatives that produces the best quality motion pictures and still images are one's that have perfect exposures. An ideal negative should show good deatail in the shadows as well as the highlights and the difference between the two should not exceed a one to three ratio As I had mentioned in my post yesterday, underexposed negatives will give you images with very low contrast and the opposit is true with overexposure- very high contrast. The amount of time required to make prints is also determined by exposure. Underexposed negatives will require less time because of the thinness of the image on it. Overexposure will require much more time to print because of the heavy density of the negative. There is no way the negative of "LAWRENCE OF ARABIA" was deliberately overexposed. By the way, if the negative was overexposed, why was there nice detail in the shadows and highlights? If the negative was 'hot' (overexposed), Lawrence's white robe and the desert sand would lack detail and be washed out showing no detail.
-Claude
-
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-24-2003, 06:38 PM:
Claude,
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I could swear that I read Robert Harris discussing the fact that Freddie Young provided a slightly more dense negative than was normal. If Mr. Harris sees this thread, I hope he can clarify this point. In the meantime, if and when I find the source of this concept, I'll make sure to post it.
I print thousands of photos a week and am aware of the effects of under- and overexposure (damn disposable cameras!). I am also aware that what is considered "perfect" exposure varies. Ansel Adams "overexposed" his negs to record shadow detail, and underdeveloped to avoid blocked up highlights. Many photographers who use Velvia routinely rate it at ISO 40, instead of the recommended 50, to reduce contrast. Also, when shooting 16mm negative (as well as 35mm still), I've been aware that slight overexposure produces more saturated colors (underexposure desaturates colors). As I prefer more saturated colors, I usually rate my negative films slightly lower than the manufacturer does.
To me, there is an asthetic advantage to a little beefier negative. Based on what I recall reading, there may be an archival benefit as well.
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-24-2003, 07:52 PM:
Hillary,
Yes, there is a difference between a negative that has been deliberately overexposed and underdeveloped to record shadow and highlight detail and one that has been very densely overexposed for good color saturation. Good color saturation is not achieved that way. The over under process of Ansel Adams is known as the "Zone System" and I know it very well. I once photographed a very white bar of soap against a black cloth background as an assognment when I studied photography at Brooks Institute and it was a very valuable assignment and have always osed the method when working with subjects that was very contrasty when I maintained a darkroom at my studio.
-Claude
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-24-2003, 10:36 PM:
Claude,
Keep in mind that I never wrote "very densely overexposed" in order to achieve "good color saturation." I said that I like my negatives slightly denser than what would be considered "normal" in order to achieve better saturation. I'm surprised to read that it doesn't work, as first-hand experiences has shown me otherwise. As far as doing that, I learned that from other filmmakers and photographers. I didn't come up with that idea on my own, so it must have some validity. And I'm talking less than one stop of "overexposure" with a film that has three stops over worth of latitude (and which will still show detail in the highlights and the shadows when printed).
I've GOT to find that LOA article... I did find an interview here:
http://www.thebigpicturedvd.com/bigreport7.shtml
in which Mr. Harris points out that the thinner the negative, the more prone it is to fading. Because of that, one can safely assume that the stunning images in LOA remained because the negative was fully exposed.
[ 05-25-2003, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Hillary Charles ]
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-25-2003, 12:29 PM:
Actually from what I've read over the past decade on film restoration I would have to come to the conclusion that negative fading is actually a pretty serious thing and it also accounts for a great percentage of our color film heritage. Because a film was shot in technicolor does not at all guarantee a good color print is available. Becky Sharp is a good example of the problems encountered with that process where some of the restoration elements came from Cinecolor 16mm tv prints! GWTW's camera neg was I believe stored in the salt mines which are a good place and constant temperature type storage place. That made restoring it(if you would want to call it restoration but I don't think Turner has actually done any actual restoration at all) much easier.
Unfortunately not all of the studios have proper film storage vaults by any means, or store all things in the salt mines, nor do they save everything as far as film and sound from a given production.
A really good example was with L.O.A. when Bob Harris had a 70mm print made from original 65mm negative material and the color again had greatly shifted.
The Following is from the restoration of L.O.A. in the Morris & Raskin book......Chapter nine.
"Columbia Pictures hadn't been as careful. Harris had examined the camera negative, and it was warped, dried, and the splices were starting to open. He knew, too, that it was fading, or changing, as color film materials do. It was twenty six years old. The negative was in Eastman color, and when Eastman color negatives deteriorate the yellow component of the negative is first to fade. This means that when the negative is printed, the black and shadows shifts to blue. To correct for this, more yellow must be "pumped" into the print, which corrects the blacks but gives the prints an overall yellow cast. The first print Harris saw off the negative was extraodairnaily yellow. He was concerned about his chances of saving the film at all"
According to the book, also during the final printing of the negatives for L.O.A. the original 65mm camera negatives also began to disintegrate, splices ripped apart tearing the original camera negative countless times and alternate takes had to be used to repair those destroyed scenes. Also 600,000 feet of original sound mixing elements were tossed out, making sound restoration of L.O.A. doubly difficult and requiring many actors to return to do their lines for countless scenes over again. It is really a testament to Bob's film restoration abilities that we were able to see L.O.A. again. That it looked even better than it did in its original release is nothing short of a miracle considering the condition the negative was in! The fact that Bob Harris has not received an honarary Oscar for all his great work makes me sick.
There are many other recent examples of bad color shift. One is the recent print at Bradford of "This Is Cinerama" where none of the panels match really well any longer, and in some scenes the match is really bad. Another was the recent re-issue of Star Wars, hich had greatly shifted in color. Those release prints looked awful at best.
I think this is the type of stuff that preservationists are really worried about...
Mark
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-25-2003, 02:00 PM:
Mark,
Thanks for the info. I don't mean to minimize the work of those who restore films. My admiration for this work is second to none, and the restoration of LOA had to have been a major undertaking. I had read about the splices tearing apart as the negative was being printed, seems to have been obstacles every step of the way. Nothing about this restoration seems to have been easy.
That bluish cast in the shadows was the same thing Disney experienced when trying to print from vintage color negative, and stands to reason that it is all too common. That the results are so spectacular is a tribute to Mr. Harris' efforts.
Especially because it doesn't take anything away from Mr. Harris' work, I still stand by my original contention that a negative with more density will not look <quite> as bad after 40 years as one with less density, everything else (processing, storage, etc.) being equal.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-25-2003, 02:30 PM:
Hllary,
I agree that if you overexpose for a denser negative it will certainly be able to yield better color for a bit longer time. It may also be possible to extract a closer to the original B&W seperation set by varying the exposure time on each color seperation.
As far as Velvia goes I've always used it in both 4X5 and 6X9 at 50, not 40 as some do. Never had a problem with contrast build up either, and all of mine are printed to Ilfochromes! I've shot some Kodak Ektachrome Sw with some sucess but the Velvia images always wins hands down. Some of mine I have printed myself, some were done by the same lab that Tom Till uses. The lab prints always blow me away, while my home grown Ilfochromes look great, but don't jump out at you like the lab prints do. Donno, but Velvia and Ilfochrome just seem to go together!
Mark
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-25-2003, 04:32 PM:
Mark,
I will continue to rate Velvia at 50 as well, I like the saturated look. Funny you should be mentioning Ilfochromes, 'cause I'll be printing some tonight. Although I haven't made the jump to large format yet (those must look amazing), my transparencies are 6x7 and blow up real good! Yeah, Velvia and Ilfochrome all the way!
BTW, have you ever had to use contrast masks?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-25-2003, 09:59 PM:
I've never used contrast masks myself but perhaps the lab does this to control things a bit better. My enlarger(Omega D5) and lenses(Rodenstocks) are pretty good and I keep the enlatrger in check with a laser alignment tool I bought, but the labs stuff looks pristene. I also use Rodenstocks prety exclusively on both the view cameras. I do have one ole Schneider 65mm Super Angulon though thats really nice and sharp. It covers the 4X5 too but I need to get the center filter for it.
Mark
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-26-2003, 08:17 AM:
Well, since my last post, I printed my first 16x20 Ilfochrome (after several years of 8x10's and 11x14's). I'm pleasantly surprised with the result, but don't think I'd want to make them any larger unless I was working with LF as you are.
It would be interesting to know what the pro lab does differently. I've read that to really become proficient at printing Ilfochrome, you have to do it on a regular basis. Let's just hope they keep making the materials for some time.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-26-2003, 09:07 AM:
Hey, thats pretty cool! 16X20's are alot of work just to handle in pitch darkness, and getting the chems into and out of the drum is another problem with that size without getting any splotches. I use a JOBO processor for just the printing end of things, I take the film to a good E-6 lab near me and let them process that stuff since they do it in two hours or less..... so first thing on Monday morning I hit the lab to see what results I am getting. With so much stuff out there to photograph I've always wanted an 8X10 view camera. Unfortunately there are no labs in SLC that can do any more than contacts. I'd have to send the chromes to the westcoast for anything larger than that.
There is also only one lab(one man lab actually) in SLC that does Ilfochrome, but the stuff that comes out of there is fantastic!! One thing I want to try soo is having a couple of chromes enlarged by the laser printing method. Same Ilfochrome paper and chems but the paper is scanned by lasers to create the image.
MArk
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-26-2003, 10:32 AM:
Handling that 16x20 was a bit of a challenge. One sheet was cut into surprisingly precise 8x10's for testing purposes (I am NOT going to waste 360 ml of chemistry on a test!). To avoid splotches, I've made a habit of a water rinse before every processing step, especially developing. Since I do not yet have a proper print washer for that size sheet, I adapted a waste can for the purpose. It did the job, but something will have to be changed if this is to be done on any kind of regular basis.
You'll have to let me know how the laser prints turn out. I prefer the "old-fashioned" methods, but am not a Luddite. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Has this thread gone OT of what?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-26-2003, 10:46 AM:
Even though the JOBO puts the chemistry into the drum all at once so to say I still did have a problem with splotches doing 16X20's on a couple of occasions but I extended the pre-wetting time a bit and they disappeared. I kow what you mean by wasting that much cjemistry for a test.....The stuff gets expensive!! Wish I had more time to do darkroom work but we've been so busy at work...I'm even heading out today for an installation at a new 8 plex for Nemo. Two screens open tommrrow night for a special promo of the film ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
and Phil thinks theres an economic slump...... ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-26-2003, 11:27 AM:
Looks like you have a recession-proof job!
I should have mentioned that for the 16x20 print, it seems a 30 second pre-soak is not adequate, so I let that in longer. The JOBO system seems good. Will the self-contained unit accept such large drums? As you would expect, I'm using Cibachrome drums (very reasonable on ebay from time to time).
Good luck in your travels. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-29-2003, 02:28 PM:
Yea, the 1 min. pre-wetting time seems to take care of the splotches. I believe the Jobo will handle up to 20X24 drums. I have done 16X20's on it bt mainly I stick to the smaller sizes. I leave the larger than 11X14 Ilfos to the lab. Paper and chems are too expensive at that size and with the lab near me being as good as they are, I'll stick with them.
Mark
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 06-01-2003, 06:22 PM:
It would be nice to have a lab nearby which could handle Ilfochromes. Unfortunately, this area wouldn't support that level of specialized work. I have absolutely no plans on printing anything larger than 16x20 (and even then, very sparingly.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-02-2003, 08:51 AM:
HIllary,
I've been to York...thats a pretty big town....no labs?
Mark
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 06-02-2003, 08:13 PM:
There are two labs in town which handle commercial work, but I suppose Ilfochrome would come under the "fine-art" category. No real market for it around here. Digital is easy to get, though. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 06-04-2003, 10:14 AM:
Preservation prize for Bergman.
Swedish film legend Ingmar Bergman has been honoured for his work in preserving and restoring old colour films.
I showed many of Bergman's early films during the 1960s at the Playhouse Classic, Hampstead which was a part specialised cinema equipped with 1.37 academy ratio.
BBC News
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-04-2003, 03:15 PM:
Another Japanese film I have enjoyed because of it's deep rooted historical background is the 1962 Toho film of Hiroshi Inagaki's version of "CHUSHINGURA" (The 47 Ronin). The story of the heroic deeds of the 47 masterless samurai warriors who took revenge for the public humiliation and death of their lord against the man who was responsible for the tragedy has been filmed many times by all of the Japanese film studios and the classic and original Kabuki version "KANADEHON CHUSHINGURA" is very popular and frequently performed by the national Kabuki theatre in Japan. Because of it's theme. "KANADEHON CHUSHINGURA" and another Kabuki drama "KANCHINCHO" (The Subscription List) was banned by the American occupation forces immediately after World War II because the two Kabuki plays was about loyalty to one's master.
The 1962 Inagaki film was in gorgeous Eastman Color when I first saw it at the Nippon Theatre in Honolulu when it was first released but the image on DVD of the movie was made from a very badly faded negative. I suspect a negative was used because there were no scratches and dirt marks one would see if a print element was used. Seeing a 1962 in faded color on a DVD when a respected company like Image Entertainment who usually go out of their way to find the best print or film element had no option but to work with a negative that had sadly lost it's color. I am almost sure the Japanese film industry did not preserve their early color films with black and white seperations and this is tragic because I have seen many other early color films from their country that were very exquisite.
-Claude
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-04-2003, 04:04 PM:
In 1986, I got to see a new print of Inagaki's Chushingura at the Royal in Santa Monica. Yes, the negative was showing some signs of wear, but the print itself was pristine. The colors on that print didn't look faded at all, though the timing did look rather green.
The technical reviews for the DVD are mixed at best. I wonder what the source was for Image's images?
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 06-24-2003, 11:34 PM:
Oh my...
Color negative not being a problem?
While Marty Scorsese and others in the late 1970s and early '80s made it known that we would like our Eastman color prints to last longer, the problem
of Onegs was understood, although the majority of the studios did little or nothing about it at that time.
A few very hard facts.
Kodak did do something about it, and beginning around 1980, offered a better print stock for mils more per foot. The industry, with few exceptions didn't jump at the chance to extend the life of prints because they knew that the prints would (generally) wear out before they would fade out. The major exception here are studio and private reference prints, which we would like to have around for a long time.
Eastman color negative stocks, for all the complaints that that have been leveled against them are extraordinary taking and reproducing mechanisms. Those of you who have visited labs will know what I mean. Their ability to withstand abuse is unheralded, but the reason why many film survive today. Eastman Kodak continues to make positive changes in the stocks, down to the angles of the corners of perfs to make stocks better and better. I've examined half century old color negs that are amazing.
As an example, the Oneg of Rear Window, shot in 1953 on a very early incarnation of 5248 had slight overall fade and additional damage to the yellow layer of reel 5B, but had survived being run OVER 400 TIMES, with replacement sections cut in over the years. When we took over this neg in 1998 the perfs on one side were virtually gone and it could only be printed one way, but it ran!
The separation masters were also the earliest incarnation on Eastman 5216 gave us decent results and had only been around for a few years at that time.
Some specifics regarding comments in this thread.
Freddie Young photographed Lawrence to be "fully exposed" when possible, and this absolutely did help the image quality through the years, even after 150 or so runs on the Oneg with splices comiing apart while runnng at 150 feet/minute. I seem to recall doing an interview an using the term "over-exposed." Freddie caught it and made the correction. Sometimes in doing interviews we get into situations in which we have to look at the interviewer as an eight year old and work with our terms. Occasionaly they come out inaccurately.
In fully exposing a negative, you have full color saturation and deep shadows with detail. One way to drive a laboratory crazy is to hold the full exposures made by the DP, even when used for day for night. If a day for night scene is printed down (dark) in an answer print and that same timing is used for the interpositive, the IP will be extremely heavy.
Most labs would like to run their prints as one-lites, but this isn't the best for the image on screen. During the color timing of a restored film, we generally go to interpositive with full exposures, even in day for nite.
This creates a properly exposed IP and a resultant fully exposed dupe, rather than a thin printing neg. Giving your print a heavier exposure to create night effects gives a much more detailed image with full highlights and shadows, as opposed to "dark."
Because LoA was fully exposed (not over-exposed) it had heavier dye layers, which helped to preserve its color balance, especially the yellow layer.
(John P. is welcome to jump in any time here and lend a hand)
Spartacus was derived totally from 8 perf separation masters. These are positive elements, not negatives, and not to be confused with three-strip Technicolor hegatives (or their preservation elements, which are not separations, but rather fine grain black and white masters), with which they have little in common. Eastman sep masters are derived as opposed to photographed. While in most cases, we had all three records, for some shots only two were extant. All were severly shrunken, and the film was recomposited on an optical printer virtually a shot at a time.
A few additional factoids on Eastman color.
Although we do find fade in later negative elements, especially those which may have been shot thin in the '70s, the fade problem (generally) ended some time in 1961 with the changeover from the final incarnation of Eastman 5248 to 5250 on which Lawrence was shot. By 1964 and 5251, things were even better for the dye layers.
Here is the strange thing.
Whether because of better processing or changes in either the stock or the chemistry between 1952-3 and 1960, we do see a major change in the fade characteristics of what one might presume is the same negative stock -- 5248.
The very earliest years have the most resiliant dye layers.
Hit late 1954 or early 1955 and things get worse, and continue all the way through 1960. Generally, the later the production, the worse the dye fading characteristics. For example, there is very little left of John Wayne's 1960 Alamo.
The majority of Eatman color films at least until 1961 have dye fade problems. From then on it seems to be almost a case by case basis, with a great deal of emphasis on the way a film was shot.
As to the reality of separation masters...
In many cases, they were not made.
In many cases they were made badly.
In many cases the wrong filters were used.
And then the studio would pay tbe lab bill and place them in storage.
Trying to use early sep masters, if they were made is a total crap shoot, and not the fault of Kodak, but rather, the labs who did virtually no inspection or testing of these elements. Testing only really began in the early 1990s.
But Onegs not having fading problems? Hogwash!
Hope this is helpful.
RAH
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-26-2003, 01:16 PM:
quote:
The very earliest years have the most resiliant dye layers. Hit late 1954 or early 1955 and things get worse, and continue all the way through 1960.
Frankly, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells (with apologies if I haven't got this quote quite right and to Claude Rains)!
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-26-2003, 01:46 PM:
You got it right!:
http://www.bartleby.com/66/5/7705.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/rarey1.html
http://www.geocities.com/pinkblancmange/loaquotes.html
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-27-2003, 12:41 PM:
Robert Harris wrote:
quote:
In fully exposing a negative, you have full color saturation and deep shadows with detail. One way to drive a laboratory crazy is to hold the full exposures made by the DP, even when used for day for night. If a day for night scene is printed down (dark) in an answer print and that same timing is used for the interpositive, the IP will be extremely heavy.
Most labs would like to run their prints as one-lites, but this isn't the best for the image on screen. During the color timing of a restored film, we generally go to interpositive with full exposures, even in day for nite.
This creates a properly exposed IP and a resultant fully exposed dupe, rather than a thin printing neg. Giving your print a heavier exposure to create night effects gives a much more detailed image with full highlights and shadows, as opposed to "dark."
Because LoA was fully exposed (not over-exposed) it had heavier dye layers, which helped to preserve its color balance, especially the yellow layer.
(John P. is welcome to jump in any time here and lend a hand)
Generally, good film duplicating practice places all significant scene information on the "straight line portion" of the duplicating film's sensitometric curve. The original (and still valid) procedure for making interpositives, duplicate negatives, and separation positives was detailed in the Kodak paper "Techniques in Color Duplication" by Walter Kisner and Robert Gale, published in the December 1960 SMPTE Journal (Volume 69, pages 874-881).
My Laboratory Aim Density method is based on the techniques outlined by Gale and Kisner, but simplifies the control method by using a single density aim point (Laboratory Aim Density - LAD) and determining scene-to-scene correction using an electronic color analyzer carefully calibrated to correlate with the final prints. My paper "Simplified Motion-Picture Laboratory Control Method for Improved Color Duplication" was published in the October 1976 SMPTE Journal (Volume 85). Here is a link to a simplified guide to using the LAD method with current films:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h61/
Here is the technical data for Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/5242.shtml
And for Kodak Panchromatic Separation Film:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2238.shtml
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-27-2003, 02:31 PM:
It is good to know the position I had taken on the fade factor of early Eastman color films, the use of seperation material on the restoration of "SPARTACUS" and the matter regarding the film exposure of "LAWRENCE OF ARABIA" in most part has been substantiated by Mr. Harris.
-Claude
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 06-27-2003, 03:46 PM:
That's funny Claude, I find Mr. Harris' post reinforces (and clarifies) my original understanding (from the interview to which he referred) that the original neg for LoA had more density than what might have been common (never said 'over-exposed'). I appreciate his input.
Roshomon, anyone?
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-27-2003, 04:28 PM:
羅生門？
Rashomon?
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 06-27-2003, 04:35 PM:
RASHOMON! Thanks!
You know, Paul, we must have seen the same picture, but I must have recalled the title being spelled differently. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-27-2003, 05:29 PM:
Actually I wasn't very clear there was I? ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I was thinking more along the line that Rashomon was filmed in glorious black & white. I'm not a lab maven, but I guess B&W onegs have their own fade issues, just not as glaringly obvious as the ones for color monopacks.
Paul
Anyone want to hire me? I'm a B&W projectionist--all black or all white
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-27-2003, 07:22 PM:
While I stand corrected on the SPARTACUS restoration, Claude, I do think Mr. Harris explained well why seperations aren't always the way to go in these restorations. You seem to think they are the ONLY way to go at all times, and have stated such in thread after thread, here and in other forums.
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 06-28-2003, 07:28 AM:
Paul M,
I should have clarified my reference. Just using Rashomon as an example of several people witnessing the exact same event (or post) and coming away with their own interpretation of it. Wasn't that movie filmed in Technigray...?
Hillary, playing ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-28-2003, 08:06 AM:
If the original negative was stored properly and is in good condition, it is usually the BEST element to use in any restoration. Likewise, today's color master positives on Kodak VISION Color Intermediate film 2242 (ESTAR base) provide a very good long term storage option when processed and stored properly, and are ready for immediate use right out of the vault for printing or digital transfer (no need to recombine separations). But as noted, silver separation positives should still be part of any preservation strategy --- just be sure to "proof" them before they are sent to the vault.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-28-2003, 10:47 AM:
Are B&W seps now made for pretty much every major release? Will we have sep masters so that we can watch "From Justin to Kelly" in one hundred years?
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-28-2003, 11:31 AM:
Since Hillary was speaking of playing Devil's Advocate:
(Sorry, couldn't help myself)
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-28-2003, 06:26 PM:
Me too Hillary, just playing. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As for the Rashomon reference, boy am I dense. Which is fine for an oneg, but otherwise... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Heh heh, my 500th post, heh heh...
Paul
Not a whole lot is required of an extra in a Godzilla film.
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 07-01-2003, 12:01 AM:
I must admit that I just re-read my comments and could not make head or tail for a few points. The end of a long day.
What I was attempting to say, and LAD patches are an integral part of any proper lab work as John as mentioned, is that there is a difference between creating a heavy IP and the resultant thin dupe...
and a normal IP in a day for night situation, with the resultant normal dupe which can be printed down five or eight or ten or however many points necessary to get the print exposure desired.
There is more print information printing an average exposed dupe with higher lights than a thinner dupe with lower lights.
Or am I still confusing the issue?
RAH
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-01-2003, 03:07 PM:
Paul,
There is no way to produce a decent looking print from a still or motion picture negative if it had faded or was badly damaged. The whole purpose of some studios creating seperation negatives or interpositives from the original negatives was to make sure that it is possible to make prints almost as good as the original long after the master became unprintable such as "SPARTACUS". Yes, there were many films that had seperations prepared that could not be used because a wrong filter was used or two sets of negatives were made for either the cyan, majenta or yellow dye and none made for another.
I saw a print of "CAROUSEL" in 1961 at the State Theatre in Santa Barbara along with "THE KING AND I" and both were very badly faded. I have both of the movies on DVD and the color for "CAROUSEL" is very good and "THE KING AND I" is excellent. I have a special edition of "THE KING AND I" on both laserdiscs and DVD and I seem to recall that the source material was the seperation elements.
-Claude
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 07-01-2003, 07:54 PM:
I saw a print of "CAROUSEL" in 1961 at the State Theatre in Santa Barbara along with "THE KING AND I" and both were very badly faded. I have both of the movies on DVD and the color for "CAROUSEL" is very good and "THE KING AND I" is excellent. I have a special edition of "THE KING AND I" on both laserdiscs and DVD and I seem to recall that the source material was the seperation elements.
-Claude
Claude,
I believe that Fox transferred directly from their 55mm Onegs on these titles.
Both show fade.
RAH
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2