Color pictures from B&W vs. Color film

[Photo Utopia]

[QUOTE=Bruce Watson;Been there, done that. It's called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor#Three-strip_Technicolor"]Technicolor.[/URL] There were even still LF cameras made to do this which exposed three B&W frames at a time (5x4 film IIRC). I saw one once but don't remember who made it.

While Technicolor is a similar process, it is quite a modern one (1930's) compared to the one demonstrated in my blog. The inspiration for my little experiment came from the 1860's and the initial work done by Scottish physicist James Clark Maxwell
His methods were refined and due to the faster emulsions available at the turn of the 20th Century brought about the beautiful work of Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky

Other early colour processes include Dufaycolour and Autochrome which used a RGB 'reseau' in order to create their colour rather like Bayer array in a Digicam (but random)

The Idea behind this isn't to create a 'cheap' method to make colour images, but for me it creates a higher colour fidelity (filter quality allowing) with more control than conventional C-41 which has thick dye layers and orange masking rather than silver thin emulsions.

I've have found that it is a very good process for landscapes, registration in Photoshop is not a real problem if you put a grid over the image and nudge the layers into registration.
I'm enjoying experimenting!

Regards
Mark

[Peter K]

Maxwell's experiments could only work because the filters he used where no strong band-filters a the Wratten filters I've mentioned above, because the the plates he used where only sensitive for blue. Chemical sentisizing wasn't invented in this time. This is also true for the images taken by Ducos Du Hauron who invented the subtractive method to get color images on paper 1869.

There are many great books about this early processes as "Color Photography in Practice" by D.A.Spencer, London ca.1930 and "Practice of Color Photography" by E.J. Wall, Wollaston MA ca. 1925 as to mention only two.

[Dave Parker]

As with anything else in photography, it will take time to work it out....and if that is what your interested in, then I say, go for it, I can't see spending that much time on trying to recreate the past, but hey, I would be interested in seeing what you come up with.

Good luck in your venture, I remember the feeling, I couldn't afford a piece of ground glass 4 years ago, so I started playing,!



Dave

[Peter K]

Separation negatives isn't only a step in the past but also in the future. It's a recommended method for long time storage of color images to make three b&w separation negatives protected with selenium toner, because the dyes of color material can fade out during time whereas b&w film is much more stable.

Peter K

[bglick]

Hey, this also might be our safeguard when color film no longer exists! This technique also offers better potential resolution to film, which means smaller formats. And as suggested above, better overall tonal ranges vs. color film. But, this is no picnic....

I am curious about the camera that made 3 B&W filtered images...I assume it was NOT 3 images at the same time? Obviously 2 simultaneous images are easy with a beam splitter, but I can't think of an easy method for 3 simultaneous images. Also, these images would have to be shot on a normal to long fl lens, as their needs to be sufficient space to allow for the light folds.

This reminds me of the adage, what goes around, comes around :-)

[Henri Gaud]

Hey, this also might be our safeguard when color film no longer exists! This technique also offers better potential resolution to film, which means smaller formats. And as suggested above, better overall tonal ranges vs. color film. But, this is no picnic....

I am curious about the camera that made 3 B&W filtered images...I assume it was NOT 3 images at the same time? Obviously 2 simultaneous images are easy with a beam splitter, but I can't think of an easy method for 3 simultaneous images. Also, these images would have to be shot on a normal to long fl lens, as their needs to be sufficient space to allow for the light folds.

This reminds me of the adage, what goes around, comes around :-)

You can see those camera here

3 color One shoot camera

Have a good time

[bglick]

Thanks Henri.... very interesting cameras.... I assumed it had to be 2 beam splitters.

[IMG]http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/images/*Z-TriMat/Devin-Tri-Color-Camera-1938.jpg[/IMG]


If I have this right, looking at the Devin diagram, excluding color filter losses, the top film will receive half the light from the lens.

The bottom and rear film will each receive 25% of the light. I am curious how this would be offset by filter losses? Would it come close to an equal exposure for all 3? Of course, with modern B&W film, this is not a deal breaker, as the exposure latitude is so great, these small differences would not ruin the final imagery.

The distance from the rear film, to the lens dictates the shortest possible fl. If using 4x5 film, I would think 6" would be the min. lens fl, or 150mm which is pretty acceptable IMO. I think the OP is on to something here.... albeit, a rubics cube of photography indeed, but it seems very feasible...specially if you scan the film and have the benefits of digital manipulation.

[Peter K]

Hey, this also might be our safeguard when color film no longer exists! This technique also offers better potential resolution to film, which means smaller formats. And as suggested above, better overall tonal ranges vs. color film. But, this is no picnic....

With seventy years progress in color film there is no much room for better overall tonal range. And the resolution isn't better with three exposures because also small registering faults are always an issue.

[Bruce Watson]

I am curious about the camera that made 3 B&W filtered images...I assume it was NOT 3 images at the same time? Obviously 2 simultaneous images are easy with a beam splitter, but I can't think of an easy method for 3 simultaneous images.

Ah yes, the Devin Tricolor from the 1930s. Indeed, three images at the same time at 6.5 x 9 cm in size (so it's not 5x4). If you look through the manual (wait for it to load then skip over the begging page to start the manual) you'll find a diagram that shows how the beam splitters were arranged.

[Kirk Gittings]

Of course one has to find filter factors and develping times for the film in use, but when this is done one can work nearly as fast as with color neg film. Scanning and PS helps a lot compared with Dye Transfer or other printing processes. And it's much cheaper too. The only problem, the "exposure time" is realy long.

Back to the cost issue. I have no problem with the aesthetic ideas expressed here, but cost wise I think you guys are kidding yourselves. Shooting and processing three b&w negatives is cheaper than one color negative? But to each his own. In terms of exteriors, on an even slightly breezy day outdoors, how many sheets are you going to have to shoot, changing filters, so that nothing has moved on three negatives? The scans will make a huge difference too. For instance scanners in the Epson 750 range have such cheap step motors that it is difficult to make precisely identical sized scans back to back from the same negative much less from three different negatives (this is why the much touted Silverfast Multi pass sampling gives such soft results on these scanners. It is not that the software cannot register the film, it is that the scans are not the same size by a few pixels which softens the combined scan). So then what? 3 drum scans?