How was a Kodak Colorama made?

[Tin Can]

I never saw one.

They look like huge color slides, but that impossible...

My guess is they were hand painted on a grid full size, like a cartoon gell...

Projection on site seems unlikely...

[drew.saunders]

This article says they were from a variety of cameras, but mentions an 8x20" for at least the early ones: https://medium.com/@Kodak/larger-than-life-kodaks-iconic-colorama-eecc5ba0193f

Negatives, printed huge, and assembled in sections.

[Michael Clark]

I attended a Ozzie Sweet class at a photo convention some time ago (40 years) in Los Angles. Ozzie had done a few of these for Kodak using a large banquet camera 8"x20". Kodak enlarged them to mural sized transparency's. Very impressive.

[Pete Roody]

Deardorff made the 8x20 Cameras.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Michael Clark]

Do not know the maker of the camera.

[Bob Salomon]

We sold Kodak the two first Linhof Technorama 617 for their Coloramas.

Their using them was how we and they found that the roughness of their paper on 120 and 220 films were the reason Cameras would have problems rolling exposed film completely onto the takeup spool and would sometimes strip gears in transport gears.

Agfa, Fuji and Ilford roll films had much slippery paper backings and did not have that problem. Kodak changed the paper shortly after.

[ic-racer]

195311

[Tin Can]

The reel deal!




195311

[Jim C.]

"...use of a pool on the sixth floor of Kodak B28 where wet 20-foot transparencies were dried overnight. "
That would have been a sight to behold, I have to wonder what the rigging that was involved hanging a 20 foot transparency would be like.
Sadly I used to work in that area in the late 70's and early 80's and walked thru Grand Central daily, I probably saw them but never really noticed them.
:(

[Jim Jones]

I believe a few of the Coloramas were captured on 35mm. Kodachrome was a great film!

[Thom Bennett]

One of the primary Colorama photographers passed away: https://nyti.ms/34zgpC5

[Ulophot]

I recall seeing one of the 35mm ones at Grand Central Station in NYC. Probably mid- to late 1960s. Phenomenal.

[Drew Wiley]

These were made over a number of years from various format originals, including 35mm (e.g., Ernest Haas), and replaced from time to time, with some lasting up to 20 years on public display. More than one technique seems to have been involved over time, but all were photographic means of image reproduction. I once had a detailed conversation in person with the lab owner then in charge of one of the last set of installations. Ironically, although those famous prints were used by Kodak for sake of their own public relations, neither the dyes nor process chemicals involved in the dye transfer printing were theirs, but were highly customized by the lab itself relative to each image. Otherwise, they would have faded much more quickly. In other words, numbers of these prints were not made directly by Kodak at all, but subcontracted to a suitably equipped specialty lab. I won't go into the details here, because that particular individual was almost paranoid about keeping these details secret, and gave them up with reluctance, even though the competitive era of commercial dye transfer printing is long over. After that, you're talking about what was essentially a precise wallpaper job, with enlarged sections of images being pasted together, just like would be done with huge inkjet prints today.

[Drew Wiley]

I should have added that dye imbibtion printing options allow both opaque prints on paper and application to transparent backing. The most common example of industrial scale imbibtion printing on transparent material was the Technicolor movie process. One significant logistical problem with the Technorama scale of this was that the Kodak DT version of processing was way too quick, and the mixed chemical time too fugitive, to be practical. Therefore, what was really involved was more a reversion to something akin to the earlier Eastman wash-off relief method using slower times and common less expensive developers. That's why I was interested in the details.

[Sal Santamaura]

These were...replaced from time to time, with some lasting up to 20 years on public display...

Nope. A total of 565, replaced every three to five weeks from 1950 through 1990:


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0be9/f1a07fefa4449e85274f9fb20b71bbde8824.pdf


I should have added that dye imbibtion printing options allow both opaque prints on paper and application to transparent backing. The most common example of industrial scale imbibtion printing on transparent material was the Technicolor movie process. One significant logistical problem with the Technorama scale of this was that the Kodak DT version of processing was way too quick, and the mixed chemical time too fugitive, to be practical. Therefore, what was really involved was more a reversion to something akin to the earlier Eastman wash-off relief method using slower times and common less expensive developers. That's why I was interested in the details.

Nope. Colorama displays were prepared on Ektacolor Print Film in 44 18-inch-wide strips, then spliced together into a single 18x60 foot image and rolled for transport from Rochester's Building 28 to Grand Central Terminal:


https://books.google.com/books?id=lF0zAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=kodak+colorama+transparency+preparation+process&source=bl&ots=P17emtZFA5&sig=ACfU3U2AQvc--vBwdfl8owe6ESx_Gxg7LA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjrk9WY-sbkAhVJeKwKHUK3Cds4ChDoATAEegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=kodak%20colorama%20transparency%20preparation%20process&f=false

[Drew Wiley]

I'll take the very specific descriptions of the extremely well known color lab (back then) who printed some of them rather than a cheesy old Pop Photo article, Sal, or an archiving protocol involving stored images. It would have been utterly logistically and financially reckless to replace them every three to five weeks over the long haul. Perhaps some were, when Kodak wanted to authentically toot its own horn with respect to specific product. Versions of Ektacolor were apparently used for some of these and would have warranted steady replacement; I was already aware of that. But Ektacolor was a highly fugitive print media and other things were tried, nominally under Kodak's auspices. It's entirely possible that some writer incorrectly extrapolated the Ektacolor scenario over the whole era of displays rather than noting the significant exceptions. The existence of 565 Ektacolor images hypothetically in Kodak's collection does not mean all made it up onto the walls; spares were obviously made, and in quantity if that rate of replacement were necessary. If they were the same prints as those actually installed, and had already faded out needing replacement, what would be the point of trying to archive them afterwards? Have some common sense.

[Drew Wiley]

It would have been in Kodak's own interest to retain on display at least certain long-term examples of a reference standard. During that era this was dye transfer. They could gauge the progress of real world lightfastness of Ektacolor products in relation to that. But in this case, I already mentioned that special dyes were chosen and blended for their permanence, and not Kodak's own commercial set of DT dyes. Large DT installations were routine during that era, though not routinely this large. Once you get past 1980, any product of Kodak would have been an embarrassment because Cibachrome was already becoming prevalent as a new permanence standard, and Fuji was already getting ahead in the chromogenic category.

[Bob Salomon]

It would have been in Kodak's own interest to retain on display at least certain long-term examples of a reference standard. During that era this was dye transfer. They could gauge the progress of real world lightfastness of Ektacolor products in relation to that. But in this case, I already mentioned that special dyes were chosen and blended for their permanence, and not Kodak's own commercial set of DT dyes. Large DT installations were routine during that era, though not routinely this large. Once you get past 1980, any product of Kodak would have been an embarrassment because Cibachrome was already becoming prevalent as a new permanence standard, and Fuji was already getting ahead in the chromogenic category.

From the mid 40s till the late 60s my father commuted daily to NYC from CT into Grand Central and I frequently went with him. So I saw an awful lot of Coloramas in those days. Some of the same ones over a period of time. The earlier ones were on a side exit not under the Kodak Gallery. And seeing a faded one was not unusual!

His office was in Rockefeller Center on 5th and 56th. I have to give him credit today. He walked from Grand Central on 42nd and Park to the office, every day, all seasons, unless it rained, and back again each evening. And he still had his first heart attack at 50!

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, Bob. There was apparently a minor distinction between the Colorama per se and Grand Central in general. But all these images were deliberately in proximity and contracted through Kodak. I wasn't interested in nitpicking the precise location of any of these, but learning a few things about dyes of potential practical value to myself, things which others besides the ornery lab individual I referenced have confirmed (and ornery in an understatement; that's why I won't specifically identify him). I even know where a lot of the ingredients ended up, hoarded in storage in China, where there has been some unrealistic discussion about restarting a similar commercial service. Of course, if someone wants to finance this just for the sake of philanthropy, fine; but with far cheaper options available today, it would amount to a huge financial loss.

[Sal Santamaura]

Ah, to know everything about everything. :)

"Colorama" was what Kodak called its 18x60-foot back-illuminated transparencies that were displayed high on the wall of Grand Central Terminal from 1950 through 1990. Here's one that was displayed during May and June 1958:


https://viewing.nyc/heres-one-of-the-giant-kodak-coloramas-that-hung-in-grand-central-station-in-1958/

And this is what the Terminal looked like, with a Colorama image then displayed, on January 6, 1968:


http://archive.doobybrain.com/2013/02/03/kodak-exhibition-center-at-grand-central-terminal/

They were replaced (by new images, not because of fading) every three to five weeks. There were 565 unique transparencies displayed one at a time over the 40 years. Do the math.

Drew, you can dodge and weave while trying to avoid being proven wrong, but fake news won't stand.

[Cryptogenic]

Kodachrome was a nice film.

[DarioLT]

can anyone explain how to make saturated 60s color style film like these coloramas? What were they doing? So many have browns and skin tones roughly in the right spots, but the reds, yellows, etc are stunningly vivid.

[Jerry24]

Check it out the George Eastman Museum’s traveling Colorama Display: https://eastman.org/colorama Referenced documentary: “The Kodak Colorama: The stories behind the pictures”

regards,
Jelvix (https://jelvix.com)

[Tin Can]

Good link!

Thank you



"
https://coloramatv.wordpress.com/coloramas/

Check it out the George Eastman Museum’s traveling Colorama Display: https://eastman.org/colorama Referenced documentary: “The Kodak Colorama: The stories behind the pictures”

regards,
Jelvix (https://jelvix.com)

[Sal Santamaura]

Good link!...I enjoyed this video:


https://youtu.be/63foCn79nG8

Now that's a backstory worth knowing. :)

[Drew Wiley]

Vivid color? Transparencies like Kodachrome to enlarged internegs to prints would be one method. Dye Transfer would be another; but Sal wants to deny the existence of the quality standard of those same decades. So be it. I found out what I needed to know. Big prints made directly from color negs like Vericolor had their predictable less saturated bias. Contrast-increase masks could be added to help. With dye transfer, contrast and saturation could be highly controlled.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Sal wants to deny the existence of the quality standard of those same decades...

Huh? Drew, when shown to be wrong, you deflect about as well and with as much intensity as does a well-known temporary resident of D.C. :)

I denied nothing. The subject/title of this thread is "How was a Kodak Colorama made?" I and others have posted documentation that answers the question. You insist on posting about irrelevant subjects. When one finds oneself in a hole, it's generally accepted that the best course of action is to stop digging. You'll be better off if/when you put down the shovel. :D

[Drew Wiley]

All you've done is a bit of superficial web surfing, Sal, and have extrapolated certain standardized procedures that might have made sense in later years way back into the long history of the project. Bob S. already contributed personal observations which refute your position. I gave an anecdote relevant to just one aspect of the overall project, but which I heard with ample technical detail to accept it as reliable. I became aware of the services of that big lab 40 years ago; but there's no way those kind of technical secrets would have been divested back then.

[ic-racer]

I never saw one.

They look like huge color slides, but that impossible...

My guess is they were hand painted on a grid full size, like a cartoon gell...

Projection on site seems unlikely...

I did a mini version of it. The negative is projected onto a strip of paper, stretched horizontally, to some extent, as wide as one desires. Then the negative is shifted in the carrier with the worm-gear mechanism to bring up the next strip to be exposed. In my case only 20" wide, as that was as large as I could process at the time. Then the positives are affixed in order in alignment with each other.
195368
195370

[Tin Can]

Dead link


I did a mini version of it. The negative is projected onto a strip of paper, stretched horizontally, to some extent, as wide as one desires. Then the negative is shifted in the carrier with the worm-gear mechanism to bring up the next strip to be exposed.
195367

[ic-racer]

Edited image. check again.

[Tin Can]

I made 40 X 30 X-Ray positives to hang in my window.

Mostly a Sun aging test, it was visible only at night with my lights on.

[Tin Can]

nope


Edited image. check again.

[Sal Santamaura]

All you've done is a bit of superficial web surfing, Sal, and have extrapolated certain standardized procedures that might have made sense in later years way back into the long history of the project...I gave an anecdote relevant to just one aspect of the overall project, but which I heard with ample technical detail to accept it as reliable. I became aware of the services of that big lab 40 years ago; but there's no way those kind of technical secrets would have been divested back then.


...when shown to be wrong, you deflect about as well and with as much intensity as does a well-known temporary resident of D.C...When one finds oneself in a hole, it's generally accepted that the best course of action is to stop digging...Keep shoveling, Drew. :)


...Bob S. already contributed personal observations which refute your position...

He did no such thing. And I don't have "a position." The thread topic/title is "How was a Kodak Colorama made?" "Colorama" was Kodak's name for the 565 18x60-foot back-illuminated transparencies it displayed in New York City's Grand Central Terminal over the course of 40 years. Documented, factual answers have been provided by several posters. Try real hard to grow, Drew, and admit you were wrong. Nobody knows everything about everything. Acting like you do when you don't can lead readers to question the many things you do know and post about. It doesn't take long for ego to impede information sharing; a reputation can be impossible to shake.

Soon, someone will post in this thread asking about beating dead horses and the point of continuing. Permit me to anticipate with a response I used previously in the thread about diffraction at f/64 and the 300mm Nikkor W I purchased from Lenny Eiger:


"I'll not continue responding to Drew in this thread...The point of every response I've posted to Drew's recent posts was...to make clear for other thread readers that...Drew's arm waving / speculation / pontification must at all times be critically evaluated, challenged when appropriate and ignored when appropriate. I believe that's been accomplished."

Until the next similar thread. Keeping new readers informed (and preventing them from experiencing unwarranted awe) is a never-ending task. :)

[Tin Can]

Amen

[Drew Wiley]

Congrats, Sal, you've made it onto my Ignore list, at least for awhile. No sense arguing with people locked into a rigor mortis of genericized opinion. What a crock! If you take the time to actually read that Bachelor's thesis you linked,
you'll see it does not refer to 565 giant prints at all, but small work prints and associated items, which includes a considerable number of papers and work negatives, etc - in other words, primarily miscellaneous things of potential academic interest. That's why these were being archived in sleeves and folders, and not a huge, obscenely expensive chilled vault. And if you like to reference Pop Photo, there's a 1950 article describing the very first individual big
transparency being displayed simultaneously with a quantity of dye prints, in the same venue at Grand Central, and how much better (in the writer's opinion) the DT prints looked. Kodak wanted to publicly introduce both at the same time, since the DT process had recently been updated.

[Drew Wiley]

Over the long haul it would have been cost beneficial to standardize the size and shape of the backlit transparencies; but apparently this wasn't the case earlier on. There's a recent book out describing the same 8x10 Kodachrome shot being selected for both a DT print and a backlit one, displayed at the same time for sake of comparison, and in its native proportion, not cropped. I've never even seen an 8x10 Kodachrome; but I have seen a number of 5x7's of that vintage, and the color was remarkable.

[jvo]

as an official "old fart" who used the train to grand central for 25 years, i can say they were ALWAYS noticed and impressive! even in that huge terminal they could not be ignored, and easily seen as an artistic and technological phenomenon!