How was a Kodak Colorama made?

[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!