Yeah, it's kind of juvenile for sure, but I was amazed that this fairly esoteric process had it's own multimedia thingy.
You raise a good point though, we haven't really discussed the "taking" mechanism for this process at all. We've just taken for granted that we have 2 separations.
And to be honest, I don't know how they secured these seps! I believe that at some point, particularly with movie film, that they used a "duplitized" film stock, that is, 2 emulsions coated on either side of the film & appropriately sensitized. Then for processing, either side was floated on the appropriate dye bath.
But as for the big glass plates... anyone know?
I have never seen anyone make a Capstaff film, but I just finished watching some motion picture footage of Capstaff himself playing himself and a movie starlet! He really dressed the part! And, he and his friends had a lot of fun.
That's hilarious.. did you see a projection of the original film, or a reproduction of some sort? Only in Rochester! :D
I guess Capstaff's grandson is a painter in the Rochester area; he's got a blog somewhere and he talks a bit about both of his grandfathers. The other was a painter; so, also into color but from a different perspective.
What greater gift than to see in color!
This was a film with Capstaff, Sheppard, Trivelli, Ross, and Mees among others. It was very well done and very funny. Narration was by Dr."Knobby" Clark.
Amazing.. that sounds like a treasure.
wellmethod is the starter--I see that there are NOW suddenly a lot of very inexpensive LARGE beamsplitter mirrors available--so this is THE time to build a 2-image (one reversed) camera. These are for 3d viewers that people are building--3dmirror dot com or something like that.
as far as filters...man--I guess the easiest would be to use the larger holographic plates---green sensitive and the other red sensitive--these I don't think are very fast though...but they are dimensionally stable, won't sag like film--so registration is not a problem--AND they are already "filtered" you need not get large filters to go over the film/plates.
so this is doable if you have the woodworking tools...oh, THEN you gotta tone these plates....and if you want to do portraits, I think maybe these plates may be too slow--maybe not--I was going to do some speed testing with a holograph plate kit I bought a couple of weeks ago, but I used all the plates making holograms (or trying to make holograms)....I got some, but disappointing....1/2 didn't even turn out
but this ain't about holograms...
Hmmm, holographic plates aren't cheap and they're as slow as molasses, if not slower. This seems a bit like going to the moon by way of Venus! If 4x5" or 8x10" film sags too much for registration, maybe you could sandwich them between two pieces of glass and shoot them in a spring-plate pressure plate.
For me, figuring out the dye process is paramount and everything else is secondary, but I can't fault you for being imaginitive.
right...toning is the first thing....the only problem with toning is that different films tone differently....
I do have it on my to do list to get them formulary toners and see what they do with film...I wanted to make a large color portrait camera taking 11x14 film--yes-I guess a larger sheet of glass (filter dyed) with film pressed against it will work fine....
filtered film is slow too---the hologram film is "slow" but I don't know how slow--didn't get a chance to try it out with regular exposures because the slavich plates I got were too thick for my hasselblad film/plate holders...maybe the ilford ones are thinner...gotta see--I don't think it'd be THAT slow...only one way to find out and I missed my chance with the materials I had...
alternatively--hologram FILM with no anti-halation backing can be sandwiched together....make a bipack with that...so maybe I'll try that out...I believe the film is clear and lets light pass just like the plates, so this should work in a regular camera straight off....2 pieces of film in a regular filmholder would be nice and tight perhaps and not sag.....this is definitely doable if the toners work...I noticed that copper sulfate bleach will leave a blue/greenish tinge and dichromate bleach will leave a reddish tinge--so maybe no TONING per se is needed...just bleach and don't clear the bleach from the emulsion before re-developing and let the dichromate do it's job....or just dont redevelop..right...bleach away and leave the stained silve salts...but they will fade with print through in time...but hey...quick and dirty, right?
An in-camera exposure on a holographic plate is going to be something like 2 minutes at f/8 in bright sunlight, or at least that's what it takes for a Lippmann developer (post #70).
A much simpler approach would be to take sequential exposures of a still-life, and/or, make separations of the red & green from regular color film.
You should look into true color toning, where the silver becomes C/M/Y. There was a process called Defender Chromatone that used this method. Unfortunately, the toning solutions where proprietary, but I think there are some formulas in Friedman's History.
that exposure was to record lippmann interferance-not a standard silver image-it was badly solarized indicating gross overexposure--gross overexposure isn't going to be cured with one stop, but many
I'm gonna try--I think the speeds may be reasonable for portraiture--I made holograms with the red sensitive ones with a teeny tiny laser of hardly any power (laser pointer) and that took like 20 seconds....what I'm concerned about is lack of dmax BUT then I can intensify the both of them or the toner can be the intensifier---sort of "grow" the color on them maybe...first gotta get some film and try it out for usable speed