Color/colour photos of jazz musicians pre-1960

[iranzi]

This amazing photo got me thinking:
viewtopic.php?p=257610#p257610

Jazz and colour photography are roughly the same age. But from the top of my head the earliest i could remember are from 1960s (will double check later)

Anybody has any earlier colour photos of jazz musicians, say before 1959 inclusive? That's the so called "golden age" i'm talking about. I'd be very keen to see those. Plenty of black and white, some occasional colour photos for album covers in the 60's (e.g. great ones by Lee Friedlander). But before??? Jazz musicians weren't worth to waste colour materials on? Prove me wrong, please.

p.s.
colour photography in the first half of the 20th century wasn't yet very portable. It mainly dwelled in studios and serviced the advertising industry. But jazz: entertainment, glamour, big shows at posh venues — the colour photos that may exist somewhere must look absolutely gorgeous.
Colour film for small hand cameras appears in the US and Germany in the late 1930's. But then the war, shortage of raw materials because of the war effort, etc. But from the late 40's onwards fashion and advertising photographers had cameras with colour film in their pockets. Must have been at least one or two among them that was a jazz fan...

The double meaning of "color" must also be partly the reason we have jazz hayday visual history preserved strictly in black & white.
there must be exceptions though..

[BGuttman]

A major problem about color photography was that until World War II the films were VERY insensitive. Most color photography had to be done outdoors. After World War II some faster color films were developed and color pictures could be taken "on the job". Real high speed color film had to wait for the 1960s.

[iranzi]

A major problem about color photography was that until World War II the films were VERY insensitive. Most color photography had to be done outdoors. After World War II some faster color films were developed and color pictures could be taken "on the job". Real high speed color film had to wait for the 1960s.

Very true! For indoor performances — hardly possibe.
But publicity photographs - they are normally done under controlled artificial lighting, no reason not to use colour. Why they didn't was most likely because there was nowhere to print colour photos. Colour magazines that's 60s. And National Geographic is not even remotly jazz (they had most stunning early colour photos!)
Advertising e.g. musical instruments & album covers are the only places that could use colour prints pre 1960.
I'm sure i'm missing something though.

Like, why don't we see more stuff like this. Professional photographers doing hobby photography along with jobs:

John Coltrane, 1960. by Lee Friedlander

IMG_1496_03.jpg

[iranzi]

Found another bunch, also 1960 (strangely). Interesting provenance: a German music journalist Joachim Ernst Berendt came to the US to do a study of "America's great art — jazz" and hired a Californian photographer William Claxton for the project.

for all the New Orleans fans:
George Lewis

IMG_1501q.jpg

IMG_1500q.jpg

Eureka Brass Band

IMG_1504q.jpg

IMG_1503q.jpg

[Posaunus]

A little bit of history of color photography (rough overview; many details omitted), mostly cribbed directly from Wikipedia:

• In 1936, Kodak introduced Kodachrome color transparency film (ASA speed 10) for still photography, creating great interest among amateur photographers. The film had to be sent to Kodak, where slides were produced and returned to the photographer for projection.
  My father took several rolls of vivid Kodachrome color slides at the 1939-1940 Golden Gate International Exposition (World's Fair) held at Treasure Island in San Francisco using his newly-acquired Kodak Retina camera.

• In 1941, Kodak made it possible to order prints from Kodachrome slides.

• In 1942, Kodak introduced Kodacolor (negative; not transparency) film, which reduced the cost of producing prints. But this film was only available in large format, not 35 mm.

• In 1958, Kodak made Kodacolor negative film available in the 35 mm format. Prior to that, the only 35mm color film it offered was Kodachrome.

• In 1961, Kodak released Kodachrome II with sharper images and faster speeds at 25 ASA.

• In 1962, Kodachrome-X at ASA 64 was introduced.

• In 1974, Kodachrome II and Kodachrome-X were replaced by Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64.

All these innovations and improvements led to increasing acceptance and use of color by professional photographers for commercial use (advertising, National Geographic, magazine covers, scientific applications, ...).

But the expense of color film (compared to black-and-white) and the difficulty of using it with indoor lighting combined to delay its widespread adoption by amateurs.

In 1950, black-and-white snapshots were still the norm.

By 1960, color was much more common but still tended to be reserved for travel photos and special occasions. Color film and color prints cost several times as much as black-and-white, and taking color snapshots in deep shade or indoors required flashbulbs—an inconvenience and an additional expense.

By 1970, prices were dropping, film sensitivity had improved, electronic flash units were replacing flashbulbs, and color had become the norm for snapshot-taking. This would have also led to increasing use of color for all photographic applications, including photos of jazz musicians - posed in studios, or candid shots in nightclubs.

As in so many cases, technology innovation led to new ways of doing (and seeing) things.

[Posaunus]

for all the New Orleans fans:
George Lewis

I am lucky enough to have heard both George Lewis and "Big Jim" Robinson play with the Preservation Hall Jazz Band in the 1960s. Eye-opening!

Note Big Jim's coffin case. Not too big for him!

[iranzi]

for all the New Orleans fans:
George Lewis

[...]

Note Big Jim's coffin case. Not too big for him!

Oh no! I didn't even notice it!!! Wow This is an absolute validation for me. Not parting with this case ever!
He makes it look regular size — must have been very tall (Ok, he's Big Jim. I'm really slow this time of night. & it's monday! no sleep, time to go to work...)

[iranzi]

Kodachrome was so amazing! I never used it. By the time i wanted to try it they discontinued it. And all the amazing colour printing processes were discontinued first the Dye Transfer, then Ilfochrome...
I think there are 2 places in the world currently that still do dye transfer prints, but it literally costs thousands.

[...]
As in so many cases, technology innovation led to new ways of doing (and seeing) things.

all very true.
Still there are quite a few colour photographs of e.g. Elvis Presley from the 50s.
I have a theory that if more jazz musicians were photographed in colour (and we didn't have solely a black & white image of the classic jazz era imprinted in our brains), jazz today would have been a bit livelier.

I have one other theory but i better go sleep .

[iranzi]

for all the New Orleans fans:
George Lewis

I am lucky enough to have heard both George Lewis and "Big Jim" Robinson play with the Preservation Hall Jazz Band in the 1960s. Eye-opening!

[...]

You so very lucky indeed!
I still have several Eureka & George Lewis records but nothing to play them on.

[JohnL]

There has historically been a bias against color photos among many "serious" photographers.

There's a well-known quote from Ted Grant, "the father of Canadian photojournalism":

"When you photograph people in color, you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in Black and white, you photograph their souls!”

[iranzi]

There has historically been a bias against color photos among many "serious" photographers.

There's a well-known quote from Ted Grant, "the father of Canadian photojournalism":

"When you photograph people in color, you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in Black and white, you photograph their souls!”

Cartier-Bresson also had some saying similar to that (maybe a bit more earthbound). That was some sort of hangover from the early 20th century days when they tried to reinvent it as Art with the capital "A" .

But i agree, not only technology limitations. Also artistic considerations were important.
And colour image must have looked weird back then — people trusted it less than the familiar b&w

[BGuttman]

Posaunus gave a pretty good summary of color photography (which was really invented by two musicians working with Kodak in the 1930s). Around 1960 Kodak introduced Ektachrome, a faster color transparency film. Big advantage for Ektachrome is that it could be user processed (I know; I did). When you user process you can push the photographic sensitivity by extending one developing step so you could achieve speeds that allowed for candid photography in modest light conditions.

One main reason you don't see a lot of color pictures of Jazz players is cost. Musicianship was never a well-paying occupation and the extra cost of color portraits was cost prohibitive. Only color photographs of Jazz musicians from the 1950s and 1960s I've seen were on record album covers.

[Posaunus]

Around 1960 Kodak introduced Ektachrome, a faster color transparency film. Big advantage for Ektachrome is that it could be user processed.

Yup. I started using (mostly) Ektachrome (for slides) when I got my first SLR camera in 1963. Made great pictures.

Only color photographs of Jazz musicians from the 1950s and 1960s I've seen were on record album covers.

As I think about it, Bruce is (of course) right. I still have many colorful 33⅓ RPM record covers from the 1960s, and also a few from the 1950s. These sure bring back memories. Now I'll be spending the rest of the day sitting by my turntable!

[iranzi]

Around 1960 Kodak introduced Ektachrome, a faster color transparency film. Big advantage for Ektachrome is that it could be user processed.

Yup. I started using (mostly) Ektachrome (for slides) when I got my first SLR camera in 1963. Made great pictures.

Those old Kodak slide films had such a wonderful look! I never had a chance to use them, and ALL of Kodak slide materials became obsolete. But couple of years ago they brought out a NEW slide film Ektachrome E100! That was quite an event in the world of analogue photography. I bought couple of rolls for testing, but they still sit in the fridge, probably expired now...
The history of colour film for both still and moving image is quite amazing. i learned analogue colour photography and printing about 15 years ago and now revisit it every time i hit a brick wall with my music.
I'll try to post tomorrow some interesting historical bits and pieces, specifically about 1940s & 50s.

[JohnL]

Kodachrome was a completely different beast from modern slide films. Sadly, Kodak discontinued it sometime around 2010; even if you found some usable rolls, there's no one who can process it for you (at least not in color; there's one place that does occasional batches in black and white).

I worked in a camera store back in the mid-1990's. We'd occasionally have people bring in Kodachrome slides from the 1940's to get prints made; even when the slides had been stored in a shoebox on a closet shelf for 50 years, the colors hadn't faded or shifted.

[iranzi]

Kodachrome was a completely different beast from modern slide films. Sadly, Kodak discontinued it sometime around 2010; even if you found some usable rolls, there's no one who can process it for you (at least not in color; there's one place that does occasional batches in black and white).

I worked in a camera store back in the mid-1990's. We'd occasionally have people bring in Kodachrome slides from the 1940's to get prints made; even when the slides had been stored in a shoebox on a closet shelf for 50 years, the colors hadn't faded or shifted.

Yeah, Kodachrome is truly dead & gone. As a proprietary set of formulas, former Kodak chemists are under obligation NOT to reveal any of it in the public domain. And then it requires high precision emulsion coating machinery....
Still there's a chance some bunch of geeks somewhere with access to a small disused film coating plant somewhere in Easten Europe may one day get results that are close to Kodachrome. Highly unlikely. Digital approximations will be the best alternative from now on, unfortunately...

[BGuttman]

Kodachrome processing is not possible except in a specially equipped facility. Eastman Kodak licensed several processors to do Kodachrome.

There were a number of color transparency films that could be user processed, and I have used several of them:
Anscochrome (GAF) made in Binghamton NY. Long discontinued, but available in the late 1950s.
Agfachrome made by Agfa in Belgium
Ilfochrome, made by Ilford in England
Fujichrome, made by Fujifilm in Japan. Still available.

The process for color film coating is VERY complex and difficult to control. Kodak had the best technology for this and some of the manufacturers listed above licensed the process. I understand that there was a Soviet maker who just reverse engineered the process using patents and made film "off license". To give you an idea, a typical black and white film has 3 layers on one side of the substrate and 1 on the other, while a color film (negative or transparency) has some 15 layers on one side of the substrate and one (but a rather thick one) on the other.

There was a Belgian process using colored granules to make color prints that predated Kodachrome, but it was pretty bad and never caught on.

[iranzi]

Kodachrome processing is not possible except in a specially equipped facility. Eastman Kodak licensed several processors to do Kodachrome.

There were a number of color transparency films that could be user processed, and I have used several of them:
Anscochrome (GAF) made in Binghamton NY. Long discontinued, but available in the late 1950s.
Agfachrome made by Agfa in Belgium
Ilfochrome, made by Ilford in England
Fujichrome, made by Fujifilm in Japan. Still available.

The process for color film coating is VERY complex and difficult to control. Kodak had the best technology for this and some of the manufacturers listed above licensed the process. I understand that there was a Soviet maker who just reverse engineered the process using patents and made film "off license". To give you an idea, a typical black and white film has 3 layers on one side of the substrate and 1 on the other, while a color film (negative or transparency) has some 15 layers on one side of the substrate and one (but a rather thick one) on the other.

There was a Belgian process using colored granules to make color prints that predated Kodachrome, but it was pretty bad and never caught on.

The soviet colour film technology — they took it as war reparations from germany. Whole plants packaged and removed east by railroad. I'm sure they brought over a few German technicians as well. And until the end in the early 1990s we used that same 1930s-40s German tech & formulas to make soviet colour stock. Albeit, by the end, on very worn out machines and with typically terrible quality control. There were two "brands": Svema based in Ukrainian SSR & Tasma in Russia*. Colour Kodak was like a product of an super advanced civilisation of extraterrestrials. But you needed convertible currency to buy it, and that had to be done only by the government (currency buying & selling were serious criminal offence) and then the Kodak chemistry... Some of the best color soviet movies were lucky enough to be shot on Kodak.
The soviets weren't the only ones that benefited from germany's loss in ww2 (when it comes to photography specifically). I'll write later, unless somebody beats me to it.

This is color negative i'm talking about. There was slide films as well but i don't remember them (probably just one type, same provenance. Definitely nowhere near Kodachrome).

(such a pleasure to discover really knowledgeable old-fashioned photo buffs on here!)

______________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svema
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasma