What's Anscochrome?
Ronald Bruck
researching this on the web, I discover this was a (slow) positive
film. Thus I suspect Anscochrome was used for duplicating slides.
Can anyone verify that this was (at least a common) use for this film?
Is it still in use? What do people use today?
And how much resolution was lost by the analog process of duping a
slide?
--Ron Bruck
na...@company.com
wrote:
Anscochrome was simply a GAF color slide film - available in a couple
of speeds - 40 and 100. Nothing special about it - just another
competitor for Kodachrome. You refer to it as "slow" but keep in mind
that Kodachrome at that time came in 25 and 64 with Ektachrome at 100
and High Speed Ektachrome at 200 and, by special processing, 400.
All of these names and numbers are from memory so pardon me if I've
muddled any of it.
Brad Townsend
my younger days (30+) years ago, when I was really into photography, I
recall Ansco as already being defunct. I believe they were a manufacturer
of low end consumer cameras and film, trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to
compete with Kodak. Come on you really old guys, fill us in!
"Ronald Bruck" <br...@math.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:141020021424114653%br...@math.usc.edu...
Mac McDougald
says...
> I have a number of slides which are labeled "Anscochrome". In
> researching this on the web, I discover this was a (slow) positive
> film. Thus I suspect Anscochrome was used for duplicating slides.
Ansco goes way back, merged with Agfa, made general usage films, neg,
reversal, color and black and white. Way back when, they had the fastest
film made, for a while. What you have *could* be slide dupe film, but
there's no reason to think so, unless it has "duplicate slide" on it or
something.
> Can anyone verify that this was (at least a common) use for this film?
> Is it still in use?
I guess it's defunct.
Don't know what the process they used for their reversal was. Dunno if
more similar to Kodachrome or Ektachrome.
> What do people use today?
You mean for slide duping?
Generally Kodak Edupe.
> And how much resolution was lost by the analog process of duping a
> slide?
> --Ron Bruck
Very little "resolution".
Main prob is contrast. Duplicating films are designed to pick up as
little contrast as possible. I do some of it, but it's tricky. Each
emulsion run of the film has to have different filter pack (you use
dichroic CYM light stage with infrared cutout filter also), has to be
tested, etc. Also, to do it perfectly, you would have a different filter
combo for EVERY film emulsion ever made!
It's not something you do by grabbing a roll, throwing orig on a light
table and snapping.
Lab I used to work in, we'd buy a couple of miles of the same emulsion at
a time.
What little of it I still do, I buy about 400 feet at a time, but won't
fool with fewer than 100 dupes, as you can't do it for more than about a
buck each.
--
Mac McDougald
Doogle Digital - www.doogle.com
Rory O'Farrell
>>In article <141020021424114653%br...@math.usc.edu>, br...@math.usc.edu
>says...
>> I have a number of slides which are labeled "Anscochrome". In
>> researching this on the web, I discover this was a (slow) positive
>> film. Thus I suspect Anscochrome was used for duplicating slides.
>
>Ansco goes way back, merged with Agfa, made general usage films, neg,
>reversal, color and black and white. Way back when, they had the fastest
>film made, for a while.
The firm was originally Anthony and Scoville - I think founded circa 1880
>
>> Can anyone verify that this was (at least a common) use for this film?
>> Is it still in use?
No
>Don't know what the process they used for their reversal was. Dunno if
>more similar to Kodachrome or Ektachrome.
As far as I know, they had the Agfa agency for USA and after WWII produced
their film probably based largely on sequestered Agfa patents. They did do a
200 ASA slide film in the 1960s and I think also a 64 ASA version. If using
Agfa derived technology then it would be more similar to Ektachrome of the
1960s than Kodachrome of that time.
--
Rory O'Farrell Email: ofar...@iol.ie
Tinode, Blessington, Co Wicklow, Ireland
Tel +353 1 4582532 Fax +353 1 4582051
James Robinson
>
> I have a number of slides which are labeled "Anscochrome". In
> researching this on the web, I discover this was a (slow) positive
> film. Thus I suspect Anscochrome was used for duplicating slides.
No, Anscochrome was a standard slide film, a competitor to Kodak's
Ektachrome line. It was introduced in about 1955, and used the E4
process. Ansco was based in Binghamton, NY, and was owned by GAF at the
time. There was an ASA 64 version, and they later came out with an ASA
200 version, which was the fastest slide film available at the time. In
about 1970, the parent company renamed the film GAF slide film, and used
Henry Fonda as their spokesman. The film was popular because it was
inexpensive.
Ansco made other types of film along with photographic paper. Their
parent, GAF, manufactured inexpensive consumer cameras and slide
projectors. They stopped producing the film in the mid-1970s.
> Can anyone verify that this was (at least a common) use for this film?
> Is it still in use? What do people use today?
If you are asking about duplicating film, Kodak manufactures a film
specifically for this purpose called EDupe. It will accurately render
proper skin tones in the duplicate, and will not accumulate contrast as
a standard reversal film would. It is somewhat difficult to use, since
you have to color balance each batch of film you are trying to
duplicate, and it is a bit of a trial and error process. For best
results, you need an accurate light source with dichroic color
correction filters.
Barrett Benton
"Brad Townsend" <towns...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I don't know any specifics, but I'm guessing those slides are ancient. In
> my younger days (30+) years ago, when I was really into photography, I
> recall Ansco as already being defunct. I believe they were a manufacturer
> of low end consumer cameras and film, trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to
> compete with Kodak. Come on you really old guys, fill us in!
Really old? Well, I'm 46, so that'll have to do...
In fact, Ansco/GAF's last hurrah in the 35mm film market was around 1975,
with the release of their "World's Fastest Slide Film", GAF 500 (there's a
name ahead of its time...could've named a NASCAR race after it). I have a
handful of slides taken with that film (I had sent it off to GAF's own lab
for processing...even the mounts proudly Proclaim "GAF 500"). Let's just
say that it was more like a IE 400 film than 500, and really, *really* red
- I made a note to myself not to think the stuff "faded" after
rediscovering the slides years later. (Grain? no, let's not go there).
I also believe this film was somewhat related to the "Scotch 1000" film
marketed some years later. Never tried it, but heard some colorful
accounts, pardon the pun.
--
BWB
_______________________
Impatience is virtual
Carsten J. Arnholm
Ronald Bruck wrote in message <141020021424114653%br...@math.usc.edu>...
>I have a number of slides which are labeled "Anscochrome". In
>researching this on the web, I discover this was a (slow) positive
>film. Thus I suspect Anscochrome was used for duplicating slides.
I believe the origin of Ansco was the US branch of Agfa (a German
company). After WW2, that was enemy property - so the "enemy" owner(s)
were relieved of their property.
It's a very long time time since I've come across any Anscochrome now.
In it's time it was a perfectly useful photographic material.
Regards,
Carsten J. Arnholm, Oslo, Norway.
carn...@online.no
http://carnholm.home.online.no
Pasi Savolainen
> It's a very long time time since I've come across any Anscochrome now.
> In it's time it was a perfectly useful photographic material.
FWIW, Basic Photography by Longford (3rd edition as of 1973) mentions ansco.
Things like '500 ASA Ansco Super Hypan' and '100 ASA Ansco Superpan' are
mentioned.
(ISBN 0 240 50617 0)
--
Psi -- <http://www.iki.fi/pasi.savolainen>
Vivake -- Virtuaalinen valokuvauskerho <http://members.lycos.co.uk/vivake/>
camera critter
>
> I also believe this film was somewhat related to the "Scotch 1000" film
> marketed some years later. Never tried it, but heard some colorful
> accounts, pardon the pun.
"Scotch" and "Ansco" are trademarks of vastly different companies.
Edward Anthony established in 1842 at New York City his company to
supply chemicals and camera equipment for daguerrotypes, and Henry T.
Anthony joined him in 1852. The Anthony Company was manufacturing
their Defiance Dry Plates during 1880, George Eastman and Henry Strong
incorporated the Eastman Dry Plate Company in 1880, George Eastman
resigned his day job as bank clerk in September 1881, and during 1882
the Anthonys were middlemen jobbers distributing Eastman's entire
output of dry plates. Eastman felt constrained by the conservative
business attitudes of the middlemen selling his dry plates, he during
1884 began greasing paper negatives with "Translucene" hot castor oil
and renamed his company the Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company, he in
1885 marketed the Eastman-Walker paper roll holder that was inserted
at the back of view cameras in place of dry plates [Paul Nadar (an
Eastman sales rep and son of French photographer "Nadar",
Gaspard-Felix Tournachon) in 1886 used an Eastman-Walker paper roll
holder to take over a hundred photographs of 100-years-old Michel
Chevreul conversing with "Nadar," the world's first photographic
interview.], he began selling his Kodak cameras during July 1888 and
registered "Kodak" as a trademark during September 1888, and the
Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company during May 1892 became the Eastman
Kodak Company. The Anthony Company in 1901 merged with the Scovill
Manufacturing Company (originally a supply house in Waterbury,
Connecticut, later moved to Massachusetts), and the company adopted
the name Ansco in 1902.
Reverend Hannibal Goodwin had applied in 1877 for a patent on
transparent flexible film base, George Eastman and his chemist Henry
Reichenbach applied for a patent in 1889 for a similar flexible film
base, but Goodwin finally was awarded the patent in 1898. Goodwin
died during 1900, and Ansco acquired his patent for transparent
flexible film base by purchasing his Goodwin Film and Camera Company.
Eastman supposedly had written in 1900 to his lawyers that he was,
"looking for somebody to sue us under that patent," and when Anthony
visited Eastman in 1900, Eastman supposedly told Anthony, "that if he
would only sue us, there would be no hard feeling, it would be
regarded as a friendly act." Ansco sued Eastman during 1902 for
infringement on its film patent, Eastman was notorious for dragging
out lawsuits long enough to bankrupt his competitors, the judge during
August 1913 ruled against Kodak, and Eastman in 1914 offered a cheap
$5-millions settlement that poverty-stricken Ansco needed to accept.
Agfa began in 1867 as a dye factory in Berlin. Agfa patented a
para-aminophenol film developer in 1891 that it trademarked as
"Rodinal." Agfa became a part of Bayer in 1925 during consolidation
of the German chemical industries, and Ansco merged with Agfa in 1928
to form Agfa Ansco Corporation. In 1939 its name was changed to
General Aniline & Film Corporation (the "GAF" that Henry Fonda so
fondly advertised for during the 1960's). World War II came along,
and Bayer's U.S. subsidaries were seized in 1941 by the Alien Property
Custodian, and Agfa-Ansco color film in 1943 became Ansco color film.
Bayer in 1952 again totally acquired Agfa, Gevaert PhotoProducten of
Brussells merged in 1964 to form Agfa-Gevaert (50% owned by Bayer, 50%
owned by Gevaert), and Bayer in 1981 bought out the Gevaert half.
GAF sold the "Ansco" trademark during 1978 to a Hong Kong company, and
sold off its photography manufacturing during 1981. I understand
that Bayer during the 1990's sold Agfa to a private group of
investment managers, who unsuccessfully tried to spin off the
photographic section of Agfa.
Bayer began in 1863 as a German dye factory, it purchased part of an
American dye factory in 1865, it opened a dye factory in Moscow during
1876, and it trademarked "Aspirin" in 1899. ["Aspirin" still is a
Bayer trademark outside the U.S.]
3M (Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing) produced photographic films
marketed under its "Scotch" tradmark, but more commonly marketed under
private brands, such as K-Mart's Focal films, drugstore films, etc.
3M several years ago sold its factory located in Italy, and I
understand that factory now produces Ferrania "Solaris" films.
However, Adorama still sells 3M's "Scotch 100" transparency (slide)
film.
Kodak and Fuji have fought vigorously for market share during the past
twenty years, and the lesser manufacturers were forced into much
smaller niche markets by those two 800 pound gorillas. When B&H
Photo and Adorama can peddle Kodak "Supra" 100-speed color negative
film for less than $2 per 36-exposure roll (by the way, an extremely
good color negative film), then there isn't that much left on the
table for the second tier manufacturers. Shades of George Eastman
striving for market share!
I assume that Kodak's recent announcements about discontinuing some
film lines (of course, the EPA and OSHA regulations also play a role
in those discontinuations) and about building new manufacturing
facilities imply that its battle with Fuji will continue.
Ilford dates from 1879, but it quite a few years ago dropped its
entire line of color films with the hope that its black & white films
can keep it afloat long enough to transit over into digital inks and
papers, and custom manufacturing.
Andrew Price
wrote:
[---]
>When B&H
>Photo and Adorama can peddle Kodak "Supra" 100-speed color negative
>film for less than $2 per 36-exposure roll (by the way, an extremely
>good color negative film), then there isn't that much left on the
>table for the second tier manufacturers.
$2 per roll of 36-exposure colour negative film is about half what
you'd pay in France. Things are generally more expensive in Europe
than in the US, but not usually *twice* as expensive. Are these
"dumping" prices?
B.Rumary
> > I have a number of slides which are labeled "Anscochrome". In
> > researching this on the web, I discover this was a (slow) positive
> > film. Thus I suspect Anscochrome was used for duplicating slides.
>
> No, Anscochrome was a standard slide film, a competitor to Kodak's
> Ektachrome line. It was introduced in about 1955, and used the E4
> process. Ansco was based in Binghamton, NY, and was owned by GAF at the
> time. There was an ASA 64 version, and they later came out with an ASA
> 200 version, which was the fastest slide film available at the time. In
> about 1970, the parent company renamed the film GAF slide film, and used
> Henry Fonda as their spokesman. The film was popular because it was
> inexpensive.
>
in the 1950s it was much faster than Kodachrome and railfans used it
because its speed made it better for action shots. Then a few years later
they discovered that many of their Ansco slides were aging badly, with the
colour fading away! I don't know if this continued to be a problem with
Anscochrome, but it certainly put a lot of people off using it. Of course
Kodachrome has a reputation for being about the most stable of the
commonly available slide emulsions.
Brian Rumary, England
camera critter
Kodak Supra 100 color negative film (36 exposures per roll)
"imported" source at US$1.99 per roll
"US/international" source at $2.99 per roll
"USA" source at $5.49 per roll
Kodak Gold 100 film (GA-100) is offered (36-exposures)
"imported" source at $1.69 per roll
"USA" source at $3.29 per roll [$2.99 for 200-speed GB-200,
36-exposures]
http://www.adorama.com
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
"imported" source = imported from overseas (can be manufactured and
packaged in Europe, Asia, where ever; or can be manufactured in USA
and packaged in EU; or can be manufactured in China and packaged in
USA)
"US/international" = made in USA for international distribution
"USA" = made in USA for distribution to only US market
I understand that Kodak offers promotional incentives to American
photographers who purchase the "USA" branded film, does not offer the
incentives if they purchase other Kodak films.
Kodak factories manufacture very large rolls of film that commonly are
shipped to other world-wide factories to be cut, spooled, and packaged
for sale in different markets.
All the great features of the "Global Economy" (local labor costs,
currency exchange rates, custom duties and tariffs, etc.) help
determine the business strategy. One poster reported his purchasing
of Kodak Gold film that was labeled by Kodak as being coated in China
and packaged in US.
Large retailers have discovered that they can purchase large
quantities of Kodak film in country "X," pay shipping and custom
tariffs to have it shipped to their store in US, and be able to sell
the film much cheaper than Kodak chooses to make it available in the
US. This is the concept of "grey market" retailing, not "dumping."
Kodak requires that its US distributors sign contracts that specify
they will distribute only its "official" merchandise, and some vendors
criticize Kodak for not punishing the "grey market" vendors. I
suspect that Kodak fears its loss of market share to Fuji (which has a
factory in US) if it cuts off the "grey market" sale of imported Kodak
films. [Fuji Superia-100 costs $1.59, Reala-100 costs $2.79,
Superia-200 costs $1.89, Superia-1600 costs $3.99 per 36-exposures
roll.] Many US consumers consider worldwide Kodak film to be exactly
equivalent to Kodak "USA" film.
Yup, Kodak and Fuji battle as 800-pounds gorillas. [Agfa cannot
compete on cost basis, Agfa Optima-100 film costs $4.09, Optima-200
costs $4.49 per 36-exposures roll. Konica Centuria-100 costs $1.59,
Impresa-50 costs $4.09]
Off topic note - Kodak "Supra" and Kodak "Royal Gold" lines of color
negative film have been discontinued, and they are replaced by Kodak
"Royal Supra" film as outstanding stock is sold. The 100-speed
category in the "Supra" and "Royal Gold" lines has been discontinued.
"Royal Supra" offers 200-speed and 400-speed and 800-speed films.
Kodak suggests that the 200-speed film can be exposed at 100-speed for
slightly finer grain. All those zillions and zillions of
point-and-shoot cameras using 400-speed and 800-speed film are leading
to the demise of 100-speed negative film. [I hope Fuji continues to
offer 100-speed color negative film.]
___________
Andrew Price <ajp...@free.fr> wrote in message news:<fnu5ru49c60lccbqd...@4ax.com>...
mariuccip...@gmail.com
mariuccip...@gmail.com
wolfgan...@gmail.com
Thanks.
Chris Green
was a colour negative process. It's the E series processes that were
for positive film. E-6 was introduced in 1977. In the 1950s it would
have been E-1 or E-2 but they were just the Kodak proprietary
processes, other film manufacturers could well have used their own.
For E series history the best Wikipedia article is:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ektachrome
--
Chris Green
·