Forgotten Pioneers of colour photography

Ask most photographers about early colour photography and they'll probably mention Kodachrome, some might point to the Autochrome process from the early part of the 20th Century but most will be un-aware of the work of one of the colour pioneers Louis Arthur Ducos du Hauron.

Ducos du Hauron worked on the theory of colour photography in the early 1860's writing papers and publishing a book Les couleurs en photographie, solution du problème in 1869.
To start with most of his work was purely theroretical because the photographic emulsions of the time were blue sensitive only and Ducos du Hauron's process required three exposures with different colour filters placed over the camera lens; one green one orange and one violet.
So for the moment the process was purely theory as the materials needed (film sensitive to green and yellow/red) didn't exist.

Then in 1873 a German scientist called Herman Willhelm Vogel made a discovery that would change photography forever. He discovered that the addition of a dye called Corallin when mixed with a standard emulsion extended the sensitivity into the green and yellow regions of the spectrum.

This had a massive impact, for the first time photographers could record clouds and images that differentiated between blue and yellow, this also meant that that now we could record a wide colour spectrum in B&W they could create negatives of differing density with colour filters; the possibility of tripack colour was born.

So now with his process a practical reality he published a paper detailing the process called:
Traite Pratique de Photographie des Couleurs (Paris, Gauthier-Villars, 1878)

A colour image from 1877

 In it  Ducos du Hauron details exactly how the image above was created.
He found that eosin, a new dye announced in 1876, sensitized to green, orange and blue. A very small amount of the dye was added to collodion and cadmium bromide. This was  then poured over the clean glass plate, which, while still damp, was plunged into a solution of silver nitrate and acidified with a few drops of nitric acid; albumen and glycerine were used as preservatives.

The resulting negatives were exposed with three different filters over the lens giving three B&W negatives representing the scene; each negative then had a colour positive made which was then dyed in the complementary colour of the filter used i.e the orange filtered B&W was dyed blue, the green red and the violet yellow.
The resulting images being sandwiched between glass and viewed with a light behind, rather like slide films of today.

Much of Ducos du Hauron's process is used today although gelatin panchromatic plates are used instead of collodion and  RGB filters are used instead of green orange and violet.
Most modern processes owe a lot to the colour innovation of Louis Arthur Ducos du Hauron a man who shot colour images thirty years before the first colour process became available and over 50 years earlier than Kodachrome.

Nikkormat EL

The Nikkormat EL was Nikon's first foray into the world of aperture priority (you set the ƒ number and the camera sets the speed) electronic cameras in 1972.

The model is a much overlooked by modern buyers compared its more glamorous FE/FE2 successors, perhaps people are worried investing in such an old electronic device fearing failure or out of tolerance forty year old electronics.

I decided to take a chance on one I found for less than £50 in a well known UK camera shop, after all the unit came with 6 month warranty–what could I lose?

My fears were totally unfounded, the camera arrived and checked out flawless against a known good meter all shutter speeds and mechanics seemed fine, the only issue I could see was the foam mirror dampener and possibly rear light seals so a kit was ordered from a well known auction site and fitted in less than an hour
at the cost of about £5.

The Nikkormat build quality is from another age, everything from the metal shutter dial to the re-enforced strap lugs are made to last even the shutter speeds are etched into the metal rather than just screen printed — everything feels solid.

Clear and easy to read controls, with a solid feel.

Another thing I like compared to the Nikkormat FT is the control placement, which to me is perfect, shutter dial top right (compared to lens mount) ASA dial under the re-wind knob (rather than on the fingernail breaking flange) with nice locks for the film door and ASA setting.
In use the camera feels very positive, the weight is well balanced with most common lenses and wind-on is smooth; the shutter... I just love the soft ssschtick sound just love it!

The batteries are very easy to get hold of type PX28/4SR44 which is a 6V cell. The Cds meter is a little tougher on batteries than later SPD types so you might like to keep a spare handy.

The metering is by match needle on the left of the large relatively bright screen:

In manual mode just line up the green and black needles

I put through a roll of Poundland Agfa Vista C41 and was pleasantly surprised by the results, the meter seemed pretty accurate, especially for one with a simple centre weighted area.

The best way to really give it a test is to put it on auto with a roll of E6; that type of film having less margin for error with exposure.
After all the main reason for buying the camera was to have a 'lazy' camera to take on holidays and trips.
Loaded with Agfa CT Precisa which is a budget slide film (actually made by Fuji) I took the film to the beach for the day:

Just about every frame came out perfectly

The automatic meter and Nikons early attempt at making the associated electronics have proven to be a very robust and durable one, my initial fears at buying a forty year old electronic camera were totally unfounded.

a nicely saturated well exposed slide.

So next time you see a Nikkormat EL for half the price of a later Nikon FE don't dismiss it out of hand because of its age, its a well made camera that should last many years of picture taking.

You've Never Had it So Good!

Its a digital world, everywhere you look digital this, digital that;– seems the whole world has gone digital crazy.
So, where in the grand scheme of things does photographic film stand?

There has never been a better time to buy a film camera, some can be found for peanuts, cast aside by their former owners in the rush to 'go digital'
But 'film is dead'! I hear the cry from the unwashed masses; well, not quite.
There are nearly as many film types/manufacturers as there were in films heyday, and furthermore there have been several recent introductions of new/revived emulsions.

One often overlooked advantage of film is that you can buy modern film, put it in a 1954 Leica M3 and get results that would have been impossible when that camera left the factory in other words, film cameras rather than becoming obsolete with respect to image quality are as good as the film of the day.
Furthermore put a modern lens on an old camera, with modern films will give equal results to the most modern cameras; you can't say that about a 10 year old DSLR.

This post was inspired by the cleaning out of my film fridge, I was staggered at the different types of monochrome film alone.
So which films for which subjects? Is Brand X 100 ISO as good as Brand Y? What about the difference between modern (T-grain) and traditional (cubic grain) type emulsions?
Over the coming months I'll endeavour to spotlight several different films, not in a formal USAF resolution chart type of way, but rather in a general 'feel' and comparative manner.
Films that I'll be trying out will include Gigabit, Ilford Pan F, Kodak Tri-x-pan, T-Max 3200 as well as those pictured above.
Should be fun!

All Images and text ©Mark Antony Smith 2007

The Price of Perfection

'Quality'
What does it mean?
To the average person it's the clearest, sharpest noise/grain free image they can produce. Internet forums are filled with people all trying for that 'ultimate quality' image.
Last Christmas I was given a copy of Henri Cartier-Bressons' 'Scrapbook'. I have been a admirer of his work (along with Brandt, Brassaï and Kertesz) for many years, but what struck me about the facsimiles of the photos in this book is how many slightly soft, grainy or less than technically perfect images (although great compositionally) it contained.
Almost the exact opposite of the images, we see bombarded at us every day on advertising hoardings, magazines and web-sites across the globe.
There seems (to me at least) to be an intolerance of anything that isn't technically perfect, a need to produce smooth toned, sharp, noise free and ultimately sterile images, where the image quality is valued over the image content.
Just look at the internet if you need proof, plenty of images of dogs, cats, ducks, cityscapes etc. all to show the 'blistering sharpness' of the latest multi-megapixel wonder that 'blows away' all previous incarnations of the digital camera.
The pictures in this post were taken on out of date fast film, on an old camera/lens combination that most would think of as being obsolete.
Yet somehow for me they embody why I continue to take images, and why in the world of perfect images, I search for imperfect images like the ones in this post.

All images and text © Mark Antony Smith 2007