Talk:Color photography

Poor History Section

I am very dissapointed to see that a lot of interesting historical information was removed while this was Wikipedia's Picture Of the Day. See the diff between March 16 and 23 (about 10 edits) Link [1] .... Also, as an example of really good and intersting information about history of color photography, please see [2] (Also, they have very good restorations of Proudskin's 100 year old color photographs as well, see [3]) .... We sorely need a GOOD history section for this article... Mdrejhon 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Technicolor not mentioned inthe timeline. It is certainly a color process.66.142.184.38 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)robcat2075

• Please note this article is about Color STILL film. For motion picture film (Technicolor) see Color film (motion picture) or Technicolor. All the best, LACameraman 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The title is "Color Photography," not "Color Still Photography." Technicolor is a process (actually a few processes) that deserves to be mentioned. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel the history section should mention the Lippmann process. Granted, it went nowhere, but it's an important part of the history in that it was the only successful process that didn't use Maxwell's three color model.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Land

I believe this is the single most extreme bit of nonsense I've seen in Wikipedia: "the entire cone stalk is an interference transmission line which resonates at two frequencies" I thought about editing it out but I couldn't decide where I'd stop. Maybe the whole Land section should be removed if someone can't make sense of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's just WP:FRINGE nonsense; completely out of step with what we know about the vision system. Since none of the section actually relates to photography, I've removed it all. -- 120.23.200.154 (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Article work / external links

This article needs a lot of work (or a lot of external links). I've added a bit of detail on screen-plate methods. Needs more on tri-camera and separation negative methods and on early colour print. Good descriptions of the (complications of) Kodachrome process and colour print film (C-41) are also needed somewhere. 80.177.213.144

The references by Sipley and Coote contain an enormous amount of technical information about pre-Kodachrome color. I don't have time to summarize today, but if someone else wants to pursue this, I highly recommend those two sources (Coote's book was published in the UK, but I found it in a bookstore in Wisconsin-- the manager gave me a discount because it had sat unsold for so long!) -Rbean 20:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

conflicting dates / claims

"The first permanent color photo was taken in 1861 by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell."

when you follow the link for James Clerk Maxwell it describes the method for taking his photograph as being identical to the description "Other systems of color photography included that invented by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, which involved three separate monochrome exposures ('separation negatives') of a still scene through red, green, and blue filters"

the method outlined as used by Prokudin-Gorskii couldnt have been invented by him as he wasn born til 1863.

Not sure if this is the correct section for this question. Is the statement "Plastic is also less resistant to tears in comparison to paper" correct? My experience is exactly the reverse, but maybe it's just me who finds the flex and stretch of plastic slips usually prevents them from tearing easily. My experience with paper envelops is that, in comparison, the paper tears easily. JJ Bosch (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistant with other articles and webpages

The articles Louis Ducos du Hauron and Timeline of photography technology claims this to be the oldest known color photograph (1872). Google for his name and you'll find more sources claiming him to be the inventor of color photography. Kricke 00:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• The timeline has been corrected. The photo reffered to as 1872 is actually 1877 (written on the photo itself!) Maxwell was actually first to make a permanent color photo. Fully panchromatic emulsions were not available until around 1900, so all earlier color photography was experimental, not practical. --Janke | Talk 11:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Prokudin-Gorskii's method

The original black-and white negatives for the famous Nilov Monastery photo Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-09-edit2.jpg are linked from the Talk page on Commons [4]. These photos are likely in PD and may, in some future, be used in a standalone article detailing this technique. Pavel Vozenilek 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A number of images by Prokudin-Gorskii have been published on the YLE news site to announce the exhibition of a range of pictures that are available to view at the South-Karelian Museum in Lappenranta until 2017/04/02. He died 72 years ago so many of the images should fall into the public domain soon I hope.

Some points from the news article in brief.

Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky (1863–1944) a scientist and photographer from St Petersburg. Set out in 1909 on a colour photo excursion, four years before the Lumière brothers were selling their Autochrome plates in France. Some pictures from Viipuri / Vyborg (previously in Finland) and lake Saimaa are included.

He captured in colour a picturesque spot on the Saimaa canal that had appeared in black and white taken by I.K. Inhan published in a 1986 picture book on Finland.

He was a pioneer and left Russia after the revolution to work in the dark in Europe. His original negative collection has only received significant publicity this last century.

In 1909 Kaiser Nikolai II gave him his own railway coach that was fitted with a darkroom to allow him to develop negatives on the spot. This was used at the start of the widespread photography of Russia. In 1914 at the start of the first world war the railway coach was taken away for more needed use.

Idyllic press (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Degradation and artistic value

I moved the section formerly titled Inevitable impermanence of color photography controversy. To preserve or not to preserve. into the article Photograph conservation because the section was more about photography conservation in general than color photography in particular. -- mordel (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

how does it work?

how do the chemicals in the film work? are there different chemicals for different colours? please explain in the article.--72.39.35.178 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Miethe-Bermpohl Dreifarbenkamera

I think Prokudin-Gorskii used the three color-camera (1899) of Adolf Miethe ?

http://www.utoronto.ca/tolstoy/colorportrait.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.41.29 (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Color photography is a technical subject

The article is a non-technical essay and history of an artform and commercialization process, which is nice light reading but the content sidesteps the technology and downplays the technique. My recommendation: create an article on (non-technical) "history of color photography", shift most of this very nice essay to that article, and supplement color photography with the info on how-it-works (now, not in the 19th and early 20th centuries) and how it is practiced, i.e. techniques. The decline of silver based color photography would be part of the history article. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The historical essay is nearly all my doing. It started out as a rewrite of the historical material on color in the main "Photography" article but quickly outgrew that space and landed here. I would agree that it is disproportionately long even here, to the point of being in danger of splitting off into a separate article and leaving a historical hole, but only because the rest of this article is so scanty. The "preservation" section was the bulk of the article when I first saw it. It certainly lacks the 21st century how-to information about techniques that you are asking for. How-to guides as such are contrary to Wikipedia policy, but plenty of useful information can be presented in other ways. Someone other than me will have to do that, though, and obviously so far they have not.

My justification for including a substantial history (although it is exceedingly concise compared to the several thick books devoted to the subject) is that it is one way of answering the most common question someone is likely to bring here: not "how do I improve shadow detail?" or "what f stop should I use?", but "how does color photography work?" If they invest the few minutes it takes to read the history attentively, that should become clear. It should also become clear that 21st century "color film" is a three-color process, just like the weird system that old Russian guy used to make those amazing color pictures from 1911, not the latter-day "chameleon substance" that even some experienced film photographers seem to imagine that it is. Digital color photography and ink jet color printing are founded on exactly the same additive and subtractive principles the history attempts to explain. There is hardly anything fundamentally new in the current technology, and old technologies have a habit of reemerging in new skins—for example, in both form and function, the Bayer mosaic in a digital camera bears an uncanny family resemblance to some mosaic screen filters of a century ago. AVarchaeologist (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Interference method of color photography?

I remember an old photography book belonging to my father, which briefly described a color photography scheme that uses black and white film and relies on interference. The approach was, as I recall: thick emulsion on a transparent plate. The plate was mounted with the emulsion against a mirror (mercury, I think), and exposed through the substrate. The reflection would produce interference patterns in the film, resulting in dark and light layers after developing -- vaguely like a hologram I guess. When mounted against a mirror (I think that's needed) and viewed in white light, you would see a color image.

Does anyone have information about this, or references? It might make a good addition, if supported by sources. Paul Koning (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

At least a brief linked mention is coming soon. Because the process is out of the main line of the development of color photography, because the history section was already lengthy, and because the relevant section of the article on Gabriel Lippmann, the inventor, was not in fit condition to be linked to until fairly recently, it was intentionally omitted. But a paragraph at the end of the "early experiments" section, featuring Lippmann as the end of that extinct (or dormant) evolutionary line and making a less abrupt transition to the "three color" section, would not overburden this article. AVarchaeologist (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I added Lippman in the plate process section today - in the correct place from a timeline point of view - with a link to the poor description of the Lippman plate and another link to his bio which has a better description of the process. Then I found this talk comment. As a photographic scientist (by original training) I could not believe Lippman had been left out. It is an elegant process producing near perfect color fidelity. Even if the supporting articles are poor - I think it is wrong to omit this Nobel winning process on the basis of the poor supporting articles. It is just too important. It is also wrong to state that it is an extinct or dormant process. It is still practiced by hobbiests - but it actually has a commercial application to this day - producing secure one off images.(talk) 01:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.223.241 (talk)

It would be difficult, and one would need a coherent source. White-light holograms do work this way, though. The emulsion is thick enough, compared to the wavelength, that the silver is deposited in layers. However, a red laser source results in a green hologram, as the emulsion shrinks. You would need to expose in three different colors of laser light, about 1.5 times the desired red, green, and blue wavelengths. I presume a reference to white-light holograms would explain this. Gah4 (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

"End of the spectrum we call red"

I reworded "end of the spectrum we call 'red'" to "red end of the spectrum" on the grounds that the former was redundant: this is the English encyclopedia, so naturally we can be expected to use English words without apology.

The change was reverted on the grounds that "red is not a wavelength". However, I'm not seeing how this fact would favour one wording over the other: how does the fact that red is not a wavelength make "the end we call 'red'" preferable to "red end"? --Doradus (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The reworded one might be better. I just really dislike the terminology associating wavelengths with colors directly, because its omnipresence has led almost everyone to have severe misconceptions about how color works. It would be better to just say “one type of cone cell is most sensitive to wavelengths in the range A–B, one type is most sensitive to wavelengths in the range C–D, etc.”, –jacobolus (t) 21:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Color photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070409120411/http://www.conservationregister.com/carephotographs.asp?id=4 to http://conservationregister.com/carephotographs.asp?id=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020404090504/http://www.nara.gov/arch/techinfo/preserva/maintena/cold.html to http://www.nara.gov/arch/techinfo/preserva/maintena/cold.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Poland 567897223.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

More photos needed in article

Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Color Developing Agent 3 and Color Developing Agent 4

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The most accurate way to close this is no quorum. While there are no explicit quorum requirements in the RfC documentation, WP:RFCEND says: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. The last comment was now 60 days ago and of the four participants in the discussion, one favored one merge target, a second favored a different target, and the other two expressed no clear preference. With only two clear opinions there certainly were not enough comments expressed to form a consensus. Functionally, this would be the equivalent of "no consensus". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

---

I do not think these developing agents require individual articles, but instead could be discussed in a section here, or possible at another suitable location, possibly more chemistry related. Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree they don't need separate articles, but also they don't belong in this one. So until someone finds a better place to merge them, let's leave them. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably better to merge these articles on developer with Photographic processing. Qono (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose one article on all color developing agents could be done. Otherwise, it seems like merging hydroquinone with the black and white photography article. The different CD agents aren't all that different. Is there a minimum size for an article that they don't meet? Gah4 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There are no chemical reaction equations in Photographic processing, not even the reduction of silver halide to metallic silver. Seems to me that should be fixed before adding anything requiring more detailed chemistry. Gah4 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No more comments here, but they are now proposed for deletion as not notable? Without them, we wouldn't have color photography. The are linked to from the description of the appropriate process article, such as C41 and E6, which have more detail than this article. It seems that this article is already plenty long enough, and already doesn't have much in actual chemistry. Gah4 (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the PROD tags. How about you work out a place to merge these two? Maybe just a new article on Color developer or something simple like that? Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's merge these to either the color processing section in Photographic processing or to the C-41 process article. @Polyamorph, Dicklyon, and Gah4: Which article to you prefer to merge these to? Qono (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Should Color Developing Agent 3 and Color Developing Agent 4 be merged into the color processing section in Photographic processing or to the C-41 process article? Qono (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• C-41 process is a sensible merge target. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that C-41 uses CD-4, while RA-4 and E6 use CD-3. It doesn't seem right to merge to a process that doesn't use that one. I will have to check on ECN2, but it seems likely CD-4. Are they really not notable enough on their own? Especially when more than one process uses them? Gah4 (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Seems that ECN2 also uses CD-3, though there is no link yet. It might be that only C-41 uses CD-4. Though I believe that it is notable enough, even with only C-41. Though it seems that what we could have is a whole chemipedia specific for chemicals. That there are enough chemicals, and enough interesting things to do with them, for their own whole wiki. Gah4 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Color processing section in Photographic processing — But only if these two chemicals are used in development processes outside of the C-41 development process. If C-41 is the only process using these chemicals, these articles should be merged into the C-41 process article. Qono (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment As far as I know, C-41 is the only one using CD-4, where the rest of the current processes use CD-3. The dye-couplers in the film and paper are usually inside oil (that is, hydrophobic) drops. Color developers have to be water soluble, but then have to react with dye-couplers inside the oily drops. CD-3 is used along with benzyl alcohol, to help the water soluble agent mix with the oil. CD-4, as I know it, doesn't need benzyl alcohol. CD agents react with sometimes colored, sometimes not, dye-couplers to form color dyes. One CD agent can form any of the three dyes needed for color films, depending on which layer it is found in. Kodachrome uses dye-couplers in the developers, so water soluble. It might be that CD-1 (no article for it yet) is more water soluble. I don't know about CD-2. Gah4 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment is having separate articles is too bad, and I suspect that there are many article about less notable subjects, one article on all the CD agents seems reasonable, with all four linking to that article. This article is already big enough. Gah4 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

chembox

Thanks for closing the merger proposal. I would note that since the merger started, the CD articles each got a {{chembox}} added, as most chemicals have. These are useful to have, but would seem strange merged into another article. Especially all four of them. It seems that there is someone who goes around added then {{chembox}} to articles that need them. I didn't know about adding them. Gah4 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Polychromide

https://filmcolors.org/timeline-entry/1234/ adding this link so that others may find the time to update the colour photography article or for myself at a later date, Inventor Aaron Hamburger who created a Polychromide process, a two-colour subtractive process invented in 1918, but had a patent filed in Sept. 21, 1911; granted Sept. 23, 1912. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 16:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Really, really bad

Does noone has the courage to write a whole article? It begins Maxwell and Sutton, then starts again and then once more. A gallery of Autochromes, Agfacolor and Kodachrome, that aren't discussed whatsoever, not to mention all the efforts in between, that are only represented by Outerbridge as an somewhat isolated example (with) Berko. Hedgecow MenkinAlRire 17:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

[Accidentally clicked enter.] Hedgecoe was born in 1932 and is, to put it mildly, a bit displaced here. The rest is bits and pieces. I would have expected more. Apart from the technological efforts, and the economical side, early ph surveys in c by Prokudin-Gorskii and Khan, there is the long controversy of colour vs b/w, the whole matter of printing!, early covers and reportage in colour, Life, Time, of Haas, Freund... Fashion and ads as primary fields, the high time of magazines, cph as art, Eggleston and New Colour, the new thing in the art market, Becher school (print sizes), Parr ao at Magnum, problems of conservation, the relative accuracy of colour rendering, the various characteristics of c-film and the processes, their digital simulations today etc MenkinAlRire 17:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

No section on film photography?

This article appears to have the flaw of heavily written from the perspective of the present, without consideration of the past. It describes plate photography; and then it immediately jumps to digital photography. What about film photography that dominated in the twentieth century? And nothing on the Polaroid era?Dogru144 (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dogru144 If you look at the version history someone seems to have completely removed a huge chunk of the information on this page because it was insufficiently sourced, instead of just flagging it. Vitiia (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vitiia Thank you for raising this point. Someone should have flagged it as such. This is not so obscure a matter that there is no journal or book on this matter. Certainly this could be resolved in a mutually manner.Dogru144 (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)