Re: IB Comments

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Richard Knoppow (dickburk@ix.netcom.com)
Date: 09/09/01-08:35:17 PM Z


At 12:48 PM 09/09/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>on 9/8/01 5:30 PM, bmaxey1@juno.com at bmaxey1@juno.com wrote:
>
>>>> In any event, I was always interested in the early techicolor recipe
>> using
>>>> pyro. Anyone know where I can find it?
>>
>> I can only assume you are kidding. If not, I'll tell you that it is not
>> possible. There is no such thing. The process is unavailable to you or me
>> because matrix film is not available. There is the Dye Transfer Process,
>> however; although, lack of materials makes this a hard one to use.
>>
>> HCM
>
>i'm not talking about using it, but analysing it. so no, i'm not kidding.
>the importance of the developing agent is often overlooked in color
>processes.
>
>i want to know what part pyro played in the "look" of the old technicolor
>prints.
>
>sorry if that seems like a joke to you.
>
>to
>
  First of all, Maxey is right about Kodak Dye Transfer using a direct
tanning developer. I think maybe it was the earlier "Wash-off Relief"
process which used the two step process. I have instructions for both but
ones for the earlier process are buried somewhere.
  Remember that there were two steps to the Technicolor process. The camera
originals were processed in a conventional B&W developer. I don't have a
clue as what Technicolor used. Most motion picture negatives of the time
were processed in some variation of D-76. These negatives were then printed
onto the matrix material. Again, from Friedman's history, and other
sources, its apparent that Technicolor experimented with all sorts of
variations of developers for the matrix films.
  I think the "look" of Technicolor came from a combination of sources: the
beam splitter camera, the IB printing process, the choice of contrast and
saturation (both highly controllable in this type of process), the exact
nature of the dyes used, and other factors. Again, some prints were four
color using a gray key.
  Another, and overlooked, reason for the "look" of Technicolor movies is
the lighting conventions. These were insisted upon by Technicolor because
they worked with the process and some of them helped overcome its known
deficiencies. The earlier version of Technicolor tended not to track well
into the darker areas, which tended to become red. The gray key helped
cover this up but a technique of using blue backlighting, especially for
low key or night scenes, was used to mask it. Tecnicolor was also very
slow. In its last incarnation the three-strip camera had a speed of around
ISO-12 for daylight and daylight arc light. The first verion was probably
on the order of ISO-4 for daylight carbon arc necessitating an average set
lighting level of 1000 foot candles. The wide use of carbon arc interior
lighting, the need for relatively low contrast lighting, and the controlled
choice of colors for sets and costumes also had a strong influence on the
overall look of the films. There is more but its all very off topic here.
Too bad the photo history list was discontinued. I promise to quit the
subject after this post.
  Its quite possible that some of the proprietary parts of the process have
become public. I would check around the web for sites dealing with
Technicolor. As mentioned, there is a motion picture history site dedicated
to wide screen processes with has lots of color process data on it also.
Try searching for "Cinerama" to find it.
  The fact that Technicolor looked so good, let along worked at all, was
due to a lot of very dedicated people making sure it worked. It must have
been a finicky process at best.
  In its essentialls it was not very different from the use of a "one-shot"
color camera for still photography. These were very commonly used for color
advertizing illustration from about the mid-1930's until killed off by
Kodachrome although some use was continued until the 1950's. One-shot
negatives were generally printed by Wash-off Relief, Dye Transfer, or
three-color Carbro. This last is capable of very beautiful, and very long
lived, results, but is painfully difficult.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/01/01-01:41:32 PM Z CST