Quote Originally Posted by Craig View Post
Out of curosity then, why was Kodak's first colour material (Kodachrome) a positive material? Why was positive material even developed at all? Wouldn't it have made more sense to have made a negative film only?
There are many factors in this to consider.

First off, the drive was on for a color motion picture film. Second, reversal such as Kodachrome was the only way to get color in the early days. The problem of placing the image forming materials into the emulsion had not been solved yet.

However, Kodak and Agfa both produced negative color films as soon as possible along with print materials and these became the norm for both still prints and for motion picture as well due to the ease of reproduction. Positive to positive printing degrades image quality very rapidly and the images take on what is called in the trade "a dupey look".

The color negative films were produced just a few years after the introduction of Kodachrome, as soon as the problems of incorporating the color image formation materials into the emulsion were solved. At this point, both Hollywood and the amateur quickly abandoned reversal imaging materials. The exception was Technicolor which came and went over the years. Even so, it was duped using a negative material.

PE