[alt-photo] Re: Steichen book on color

[Richard Knoppow]

     I got the book yesterday, rather disappointing in some 
ways. The images are shown, I think, uncorrected. That may 
be because the editors wanted to give the viewers an idea of 
what they look like now but I would have liked  to have seen 
discussion about whether they were degraded from the 
original condition. At least in one case, a hand colored 
transparency, that must be so since there is very little 
color detectable. The notes also leave something to be 
desired. I don't think the editor did enough research into 
the processes being used. Most of these are "dye imbibition" 
prints: they were either Eastman Wash-Off Relief or Kodak 
Dye Transfer prints depending on date. I don't remember when 
this changed but I believe it was after WW-2 and there were 
differences in the details of the process although the 
principle remained the same. The author also remarks on the 
brilliantly saturated colors of the "pigments" in dye 
imbibition and relates it to Technicolor: first of all the 
images are made of dye not pigment, they are different. The 
colors in carbon and carbro prints are pigments (but can be 
dye). The longevity of dye imbibition prints _is_ due to the 
choice of dyes, more permanent ones being available than 
those produced in chromogenic materials, at least those of 
the time. The brilliant color is a matter of choice: for 
instance, Technicolor, in the early days of its three-color 
process, tried both brilliant and subtle color, it was the 
producers who used the process that decided audiences wanted 
lots of color. The dye imbibition process is capable of very 
subtle pastel effects depending on how its worked.
     One reason I would like to know more about the source 
materials is that the prints used to make this book may have 
been discards made to proof advertising originals. Dye 
transfer and three-color-carbro prints were used as original 
material to make the four color printing plates for color 
advertising; if these are originals for that I am surprized 
the quality is not better. Of course, some of the pictures 
are not advertising but perhaps personal and some are marked 
experimental.
     In the course of the thread on this there was some 
speculation as to what some of the images marked "unknown 
process" might have been, its too bad that GEH did not have 
some real experts examine these because the identification 
might be evident to someone looking at the originals. 
Perhaps they had only restricted access but I am just making 
excuses.
     The book is worth having, not very expensive from 
Amazon. However, UPS or poor packing managed to tear the 
plastic strip across the front with the title on it.
     I hasten to state that I am NOT an expert in color 
processes, or photography in general, but I have been 
studying it and working with it for more than sixty years 
now and have a fair knowledge.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk at ix.netcom.com