PDA

View Full Version : 1930's Photography


Willow
06-25-2008, 04:55 PM
Gina Cho Daniels originally asked:

Since a couple of people, including Gina, have cameras, and we had a flood of photo paper the other night.. I realized I have a slight history problem.

When I wrote up a couple of photos, I forgot to take the color words out of the examines that I based them on. Thankfully I only made a couple.. so I could do them in black and white from now on.

Except, I'm confused.. I figured alot of people might not think of the color issue immediately, so I researched color film to be sure I was right about being wrong (heh) .. and I now have no clue.

This is what I think I have found:

Because of cost, convenience, simplicity, etc, black and white was definately the "default" of what a photo would be in the 1930s.

However, color photos DID exist in the 1930s..

-Using plates, it'd been around for awhile.. but since our props are Kodak Brownies, I don't think I can say that Gina uses plates instead of film (although that would be her IC preference).

-Kodachrome color film was commercially available in 1935. But it required really complicated chemistry and equipment. It was sold with an envelope to put it in and send it off to Kodak when you were done. So we could get color photos that way, but I guess realistically we wouldn't be printing them ourselves so we'd have to remember turn around time. And again, I don't know if Kodak Brownies could use Kodachrome.

-In 1936 the German company Agfa introduced Agfacolor-Neu transparency film, which was like Kodachrome but much easier to develop. But I can find no information about whether it was easy -enough- to develop on your own. And yet again.. can a Kodak Brownie use it?

-Older than any of those, is the color seperation method, where pictures were taken three times - each with a different color filter (red, blue, and green) and then ..some stuff I don't have the patience to summarize, but you get the basic premise. It involves light I don't know if photos could be *printed* this way, or just projected..

So.. anyway, all of this nonsense is to pose the question..
For photos taken at school (not photos brought or sent from home, cause no one knows or cares how you got those developed : Should we all just pretend everyone's photos are actually black and white? Should color photos just be really special and hard to get? Or should we fudge history a bit and allow our characters to develop color photos in their bathrooms or whatever?

I ask for general consensus because despite all the researching I just did, I have no real clue how photography worked back then, and I don't want to look like an idiot to you all in game >.>

Oliver White responded:
Gina,

If it's any consolation, Oliver got a black and white photograph in a care package 2 years ago... in which someone had green eyes. So, even our illustrious staff can make that mistake.

As you point out color photos were definitely possible. There's a great source of period photos that the Library of Congress has put up on Flickr, from the late 30s through the 40s almost entirely in color. However, when you start searching for 1930s photos, most of them appear in black and white. So in terms of our game, we're pretty much in the transition period. And since we've stopped advancing in time and are somewhere between '33 and '39, I'd wager that sticking with black and white is best. Besides, given the cost and technical skill associated with color photographs, they have to be pretty rare.

That said, at some point in the distant past, staff were working on cameras and implementing a system for them. Which if my memory serves correctly was going to be based on black and white photography. I have no idea how far they ever got. It was announced and then never spoken of again. (Although given the complexities of it, that just seems an incredibly daunting task.)

Suede also responded:
Even in the 1950s Kodak Brownies worked only in black and white. VP127 or VP120 film, depending on the size of the resultant negative. (VP = "Verichrome Panchromatic" or Verichrome Pan".)

Color film, even if it existed for the Brownies (which I'm pretty sure it didn't) was horribly fiddly, and demanded something of a CDC style laboratory for developing. Nobody but the dedicated pros developed their own color photos.

Developing black and white Verichrome Pan film consisted of removing the spool of film from the camera in a pitch black darkroom, unrolling the spool and removing the film from the backing paper, spooling it onto a holder which was then inserted into a cylindrical and lightproof developing tank, then pouring in your developer, waiting, pouring out the developer, pouring in your stop bath, waiting, pouring out the stop bath, removing and rinsing, and looking at the negatives (which were about 2" on a side, or smaller) with a light box to determine which you wanted to print.

Selected negatives were mounted in an enlarger. Under a safety light (red) the enlarger projected the negatives onto a piece of photosensitive paper for a given amount of time, depending on the sensitivity of the paper. "Dodging" could be done if you wanted some parts of the print to be lighter. No Photoshop here: you used a piece of paper or a wad of cotton on a stick to block the light from the enlarger over given parts of the paper, moving the paper or the wad around carefully so as to prevent any noticeable edges in the dodged area. The paper then went through the same process as the film: developer bath, stop bath, rinse.

If you didn't want an enlarged print, you could make contact prints with another kind of light box. This was a box with a glass top, a light bulb inside, and a hinged cover with a switch. The negative went onto the glass, the photo paper was placed face down over the negative (making "contact" with the negative), and when the cover was closed over the two and pressed down, the light would go on and expose the paper through the negative, making a positive print. Developing went as above.

Developed paper had a matte finish. If a glossy print was desired, the damp picture was applied, face down, to a polished metal drying mirror. The prints would peel off, Dead Sea Scroll-style, when they were dry, and would have a glossy finish. You had to straighten them out yourself with the edge of a table top.

Willow
06-25-2008, 04:58 PM
Gina then replied:
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking.. they should be black and white.
And I guess that Kodak colored films weren't used for prints (just slides and motion pictures) until the 40s.. I don't know, hard to find cohesive information on the web.

I had just been hoping I could cover my tracks by finding some explanation where I didn't have to go back and fix those 4 pictures (or ask people to ignore the color words). Like ...Gina's dad got her one really really special film roll to document her first while at school? Part of the "Sorry kid, I'm ditching you for the next four years" shopping spree where she got her one and only dress and her bicycle >.>

Oh well, I will remember next time

Suede suggested:
Photo tinting is always possible. This is where you use tiny brushes and something like watercolors to paint color on the black and white print. You see this today in some old photos. It doesn't look quite real, and the effect is something of a soft pastel tint, but Gina's dad could have had a good professional do the job, so while your pictures aren't technically color photographs, they can be "hand-tinted photographs".

Gina replied:
Oh yeah I don't care about her personal photos being colored or not.. just three she took the other day from the alleyway. Color was pretty important there.

I took a photo of Oliver and I think there are only a couple of color words that shouldn't be there, like the green of his coat and the brown of his hat and hair. Those were just minor things I didn't think of as I was being lazy and copy-pasting from his examine

But the alleyway photos I would need to rewrite altogether - too much color everywhere. The whole situation revolved so much around color that I completely forgot it shouldn't be there.


Although: "..primitive color processes involved taking separate exposures on three sheets of black-and-white film. Each sheet was exposed through a different color filter, in effect producing color separations like those used in color printing. Kodak's dye-transfer process for making color prints still uses three black-and-white negatives in this way."

I don't know if the above method is really what it sounds like to me. Would it not be possible for her to do that herself, with some home-made color filters? Just pretend she took the shots three times, changing filters in between?
Oliver's picture should still be black and white anyway, but those pictures she took in the alley.. she might have taken the time to do that.

Now I'm curious just for my own sake.. not saying the brownie would be able to use this, but http://www.oldandsold.com/articles21...graphy-9.shtml (http://www.oldandsold.com/articles21/color-photography-9.shtml) seems to be all about color film and how to develop it (specifically I'm looking at Lumierre Filmcolor, toward the bottom), and is from 1938.

Photography and Chemistry *are* her best skills :D

Willow
06-25-2008, 05:05 PM
Oliver White added:
This has gotten real nerdy, real fast.

Gina's photos were taken in a poorly lit alley, at night. Looking at some of the color photos I linked above from the LoC, there is very little detail in shadowy areas, which is much of what the body would have been draped in. So I doubt they're going to be the best photos to begin with.

However, if you want to get color photos, I'd suggest bugging the staff for the following:

* A tripod for the camera. If you're applying filters, you need the camera in the exact same location each time.
* A tripod for your light source. If the light moves any, that's going to change the shadows, and throw off the light/dark areas.
* Some filters.

I'm sure if such items don't exist, and you're willing to write them up, they'll put it in their to-do list. Particularly if you're willing to go the full 'I'm a photographer' RP-ing aspect. Which I think would be cool. It opens up a couple of interesting areas. First, Gina could easily get a job at one of the newspapers taking photos. Thereby enhancing the soon to be revived Crier. Second, she could become a sort of archivist of plots; taking interesting pictures which can be stored and then shared with future characters.

Godsend finished with:
Tinting was done most effectivly with a combination of soap and water colour. Dont ask me why I know this but I do. I remember it from highschool photography classes many many years ago ;)

Staff Response:
This is a really nice discussion on RP points and keeping in character with the timeframe of the 1930's. When in doubt, asking your peers OOC'ly in game or via the forums is a good idea. We're all supportive here.

As for if color photography is allowed, we are considering that MU is fairly progressive in knowledge, so if a player decided to RP that they had a way to take and develop color photographs that sounded feasible (fellow players went 'okay, I'll buy that') and it was explained all within the current environment of what one can achieve along with a small bit of bluebooking, then go for it. Granted we're not talking about launching rockets to the moon here or inventing television.

Like Oliver suggested, if you wanted to write up a few descriptions for some simple objects that could be available for any photography nut in game we'll likely support your efforts.

Oliver White
06-25-2008, 05:37 PM
Here's the Library of Congress flickr link I had originally posted. It's full of wonderful photos:
Complete album (http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/)
30s and 40s in color (http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/sets/72157603671370361/)