It was a good post. After you posted it, a photojournalist I know also posted
it on FB. I cut and pasted my reply. ;)Flexichrome looks like a massive PITA
to do. :)
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 3:27 PM, `Richard Knoppow
<dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually, I agree with you. I think the writer needed a
subject and glomed on to a casual technical comment. In a way I
am sorry I linked the article but I so seldom see commentary
about the technical side of photography.
Flexichrome was bought by Kodak and promoted mostly for
advertising illustration. Like modern digital image manipulation
it had the capability of changing the colors in a photo almost at
will. Do you want the model to have a red or blue dress? Well you
can make it whatever you want.
There is a very brief history at:
http://www.graphicsatlas.org/guidedtour/?process_id=346
Perhaps this is what you saw. There are many processes that
depend on the differential hardening of a gelatin or other type
of coating. Widely used in alternative processes like
gum-bichromate and carbon printing. The gelatin takes up the dye
or pigment in proportion to its thickness. The idea of
Flexichrome is that the dyes would not wander so could be
concentrated to show some detail. Kodak used to offer large sets
of Flexichrome dyes which could also be used for retouching.
Kodak also offered the dye transfer process for many years. A
difficult to control process but capable of superb color.
I got interested in carbon a long time ago. Its practical
for monochrome but the three color carbon requires even more
control than dye transfer. Three color carbon was widely used for
advertising illustration but was eventually replaced by dye
transfer and Kodachrome. The color in carbon prints is a pigment
so it is very long lasting.
On 4/28/2019 12:16 AM, Eric Nelson (Redacted sender emanmb for
DMARC) wrote:
No I had never heard of flexichrome but googled it. Looks
interesting :)
https://www.etsy.com/listing/222329304/kodak-flexichrome-process-vintage-colors?show_sold_out_detail=1&frs=1
The point I was trying to make RE: the article was that the
rendering of tones is just that. It's a technical issue that was
dealt with as it could be given the materials then as well as now.
The author is trying to manufacture a relationship between film
manufacturing, sensors and her original topic where none exists.
