One of the primary Colorama photographers passed away: https://nyti.ms/34zgpC5
One of the primary Colorama photographers passed away: https://nyti.ms/34zgpC5
I recall seeing one of the 35mm ones at Grand Central Station in NYC. Probably mid- to late 1960s. Phenomenal.
Philip Ulanowsky
Sine scientia ars nihil est. (Without science/knowledge, art is nothing.)
www.imagesinsilver.art
https://www.flickr.com/photos/156933346@N07/
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.
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. A total of 565, replaced every three to five weeks from 1950 through 1990:Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
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:
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.
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!
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.
Last edited by Drew Wiley; 10-Sep-2019 at 20:25.
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:
And this is what the Terminal looked like, with a Colorama image then displayed, on January 6, 1968:
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks