Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,770   Posts: 1,484,237   Online: 1084
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,723
    Images
    65
    That print is badly faded. The dmin is turning orange as well. This is typical of a print from those days that was either not processed well or came from an early process. It may also indicate bad keeping as I have some from the 50s that look better than that.

    I also have some Agfa negatives and prints that look worse than that. It varies with process and with keeping.

    If you have the negative, you might try a reprint. That might change your mind about the prints of that era. It might have been quite vibrant at the time.

    PE

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    65
    Thanks for the input everyone, I'll have to try the over expose and then pull technique to see what happens!

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Another option is to shoot with genuinely old, outdated film. For an example, see my Flickr set with Svema CO32D film, which is about 20 years past date. Of course, this would have looked different if it had been shot fresh, but you can get some interesting effects with old film. If you scour eBay, you'll see an occasional roll or two of old film, and even several rolls every now and then. I bought ten rolls of the Svema CO32D slide film along with ten rolls of Svema CND64 negative film from one seller, for instance. The slide film is in much better condition, which emphasizes an important point: Shooting old film is a crap shoot. You generally don't know the storage conditions, and keeping qualities can vary from one brand or type to another. If you consider the unpredictability to be part of the fun, then that's all to the good. If not, you'll need to buy several rolls, stored together, from one source.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    That print is badly faded. The dmin is turning orange as well. This is typical of a print from those days that was either not processed well or came from an early process. It may also indicate bad keeping as I have some from the 50s that look better than that.
    FWIW, I've got photo albums from the 1960s to 1980s with prints made at a variety of photofinishers (mostly drug stores' send-out and mail-order services catering to average people). Some of these prints look quite good even today, but others are just hideous. The effect can be quite dramatic, particularly when one sequence spans two photofinishers -- one print from a given event looks fine, and the next, placed next to the first in a photo album, is badly faded. My memory is that they looked equally good when they were new.

    If you have the negative, you might try a reprint. That might change your mind about the prints of that era. It might have been quite vibrant at the time.
    One of my projects over the past couple of years has been making reprints of many of these old photos, so that my sister and I can both have albums of the photos of our childhood. My reprints, on modern RA-4 papers, usually look better than the original prints, even the ones that aren't obviously faded. FWIW, I've found some of the earliest C-41 negatives are in worse shape than the C-22 negatives that are a few years older. These early C-41 negatives have faded a bit, producing color crossover effects. I don't know if that's typical of late C-22 vs. early C-41 or if one or more of the photofinishers my mother used just didn't get it quite right with their earliest C-41 efforts.

  5. #15
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,723
    Images
    65
    I have C-22 and C-41 negatives and E20 and E30 prints. These go from about 1949 - present. I find a wide variation in keeping. One constant is that those I processed seem to do best, on average.

    Two things we found at EK. Poor wash in the EP2 and EP3 process or lack of a recommended stop led to retention of color developer in the coupler dispersion which then made for worse print stability. This may also be true of C-41, but I did not investigate those complaints. In addition, lack of proper formaldehyde stabilzer or formaldehyde fix bath could cause the orange dmin.

    These were eliminated with an adjustment to the process and a change to couplers insensitive to those problems.

    PE

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by tim elder View Post
    This looks like a fading print to me, not a particular look from an earlier film stock.

    Tim
    Indeed, I've scanned a 40 year old colour neg and it looks the same as the print (from 40 years ago)..............taken with a Pentax 55mm f1.8 auto tak lens and sharpness is inferior compared to modern films.

    http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/n...ata/img148.jpg

  7. #17
    bvy
    bvy is online now

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    712
    Images
    30
    Just out of curiousity, what's the date of the print?

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by bvy View Post
    Just out of curiousity, what's the date of the print?
    erm if your post is for me, then it would be about 1963.

  9. #19
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,723
    Images
    65
    In 1963, the old magenta and yellow couplers were used which gave that Dmin problem and fade. The process itself could contribute to cyan fade if not done properly. That could have been either the P-122 process or the Ektaprint C process.

    PE

  10. #20
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,873
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    121
    You could also try soaking the print in water for a long period of time, the emulsion starts to degrade. I accidentally did this to some Elite chromes and they started to turn red.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin