Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
5. Color film was slow, as in needed a LOT of light, and the process was cumbersome.
Wed Dec 28, 2022, 05:15 PM
Dec 2022

Kodachrome and Agfachrome were essentially B&W film in three layers. Each layer was exposed to a different color light, ie, red green and blue. The silver grains were then bleached out and replaced with a dye. The upside was the dye was almost as permanent as silver, the downside was that the film had to be developed three times. The process was expensive as you can imagine.

B&W film was much faster, as in could capture images in poor conditions, and permanent. Properly processed a B&W print will yield useful information after 2000 years. If Jesus was a real person and if we had a B&W snapshot of him his likeness would still be recognizable.

Later color processes were terrible for permanence, only lasting a few years before losing color and fading.

Modern digital imaging is about as permanent as it gets as it's just ones and zeros that can be stored in a myriad of ways. The actual pictures printed for display will last about 30-50 years depending on how they are displayed BUT the 1s & 0s will last to infinity and can be reproduced without degradation.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»American History»Sincere ignorant, admitte...»Reply #5