Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admin

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (3)

Recommended Posts

Bill

Kodak had two concerns, both to protect it's reputation for excellence, and it's reputation for wholesome social responsibility. Kodak wanted to be certain any processor did everything correctly, so the resulting film would be as photographically excellent as possible (with consideration for the fact the photographer might not be very talented and could take pictures of poor composition, out of focus, blurred, or badly exposed), so no one would ever blame the lab for ruining a photographer's effort.

 

The second consideration was Kodak was a very strict and proper company in terms of social morality, during an era (the 1960's) when photographed nudity and sexual activity where coming out from the shadows into the mainstream social arena, and Kodak was determined to take the role of censor and seize any processed film or pictures depicting human nudity or sexual content. So you should expect that a lot of their contract provisions with a lab licensed to process Kodachrome would allow Kodak to watch for any lab processing of such "undesirable" photographed material.

 

As a college film school student from 1966-1969, I recall many a conversation with fellow film students about what we could show, and what we could not, and where to get film processed if we chose to push the envelope and film content that was on the edge of acceptability in the puritanical social attitudes that were slowly crumbling in the era of "free love". Kodak's very strict puritanical rules about not processing any film containing nudity or sexual content was well known.

 

So in consideration of what kind of rules or regulations Leonard Tall might be dealing with in his license with Kodak, those two considerations would likely have taken a substantial part of the license agreement.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
4 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Frank Ishihara:

 

Worked in the industry and knows the limitation of development back in 1967.   Is fairly confident the film was not developed on a Saturday in the PNW.

 

Skeptics say we must listen to him as what he says somehow proves the PGF is a hoax.  Why?  Because he is an expert of the era.

 

 

Jonas Prohaska:

 

Worked in the industry and knows the limitations of 1967 era materials.

 

States the PGF is not a man in a suit.   Skeptics tell us we don't have to listen to him even though he is an expert of the era.  Interesting isn't it?

 

 

 

Look Frank is a learned guy and his opinion deserves respect and consideration.  We just need to keep in mind what he is saying and what he is not saying and both sides need to be honest about it.  Sadly what we have is what we have as he has passed away.  We need to consider many of his thoughts are 30,40 + years after the fact as well. 

 

 

Even though I doubt Frank developed the PGF, did anyone ever ask him outright if he did?  If he did, was he really going to say he did even 45-50 years later just before he died?

 

 

 

 

 

When asked if he thought the PGF was a suit Prohaska said, “I don’t think so.”

 

followed by how how it could have been done if it was a suit.(gluuuing  of the hair,  would take a long time etc...)

 

 

When asked if he thought Tall could have processed the pgf on a weekend OldMort said, “I don’t think so.”

 

followed by a detailed account of why he felt that way.

 

Both statements are pure speculation, from experts in their respective fields (btw prohaska was being interviewed for a pro Bf production). OldMort is here, because he’s OldMort and he rocks and can still answer questions.

 

Can you fellas please leave some cherries on the tree? I promised Mrs. McSquatch a pie later this week thank you very much.

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

If I can read HMB's post and the proponents read HMB's post and we come up to two different conclusions, there is no amount of explaining I can do to convince a proponent of my case.  Its all literally right there in HMB's post.   The only thing I can do is agree to disagree.    Proponents can choose to do as they wish.   It was pretty clear that Frank does not believe the PGF was processed in Seattle at their facility.   I agree with that belief.  

 

I'll leave it with these quotes from the source, HMB's post.

 

Frank said, “ Leonard Tall would not risk losing the process for a few hundred bucks by letting someone else other than my team run it. Then, there is no covering up a screw-up”.

 

Frank believed Leonard Tall, the owner, would never jeopardize his considerable investment and Technicolor’s license by allowing the use of the lab outside the confines of the license protocol and agreement. Certainly, any employee caught violating the protocols would be terminated.

 

Frank said the only person other than himself at Technicolor capable of processing Kodachrome film without assistance was his boss Leonard Tall. Frank said he knew Tall well and that Tall would never consider processing a film outside the requirements of the protocol. 

 

 

Edited by Twist
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

I thought it was pretty clear too, Twist. Two conclusions indeed.

 

The  phrase ‘pgf fundamentalism’ comes to mind...

 

🤣

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Just a quick tech question:

 

Would Kodachrome II  film be gauged the same as Kodak EF High Speed Color Positive wrt overall stock width edge to edge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

When asked if he thought the PGF was a suit Prohaska said, “I don’t think so.”

 

followed by how how it could have been done if it was a suit.(gluuuing  of the hair,  would take a long time etc...)

 

He didn’t think so.   That was his conclusion.    Who would dispute that when you can look up the video?

 

 

1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

When asked if he thought Tall could have processed the pgf on a weekend OldMort said, “I don’t think so.”

 

followed by a detailed account of why he felt that way.

 

That’s nice that OM feels that way.  He has good insight and could be right.  What does that have to do with what I said?  I never mentioned OM in any way in my post.

 

1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Both statements are pure speculation, from experts in their respective fields (btw prohaska was being interviewed for a pro Bf production). OldMort is here, because he’s OldMort and he rocks and can still answer questions.

 

 

You seem to be responding to a post of your own imagination.

 

 

1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Can you fellas please leave some cherries on the tree? I promised Mrs. McSquatch a pie later this week thank you very much.

 

 

Will do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
2 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

He didn’t think so.   That was his conclusion.    Who would dispute that when you can look up the video?

 

 

 

That’s nice that OM feels that way.  He has good insight and could be right.  What does that have to do with what I said?  I never mentioned OM in any way in my post.

 

 

 

You seem to be responding to a post of your own imagination.

 

 

 

Will do.

 

 

I think my imagination just replied to me in a post.

 

”’He didn’t think so”

 

‘that was his conclusion’ says Backdoc.

 

It was actually his first statement. 

 

Followed by how it could have been done. Context, my friend.

 

Not saying it was. Just saying.

 

Harry Kemball, anyone?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Twist,

 

I like all three quotes as well.

Quote 1- "..would not risk.."

Quote 2- "..would never.."

Quote 3- "..would never consider.."

 

As I have repeatedly said, Frank Ishihara never says Tall didn't, he speculates that he wouldn't have done it, for risk of loosin' his license. Which as I've repeatedly said, would be the perfect reason for Tall not wantin' the processin' location known...hypothetically speakin' of course.

 

HOLDMYBEER also said..."The business about Frank wanting to examine the original film is a subjective observation on my part. Frank always thought he would be able to examine the original film and that it would provide a simple answer to where the film was NOT processed." 

 

As I've repeatedly said, not sayin' it was, but the fact is, we don't known that it wasn't, that simply suggests it was possible. 

 

Pat...

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

answer to technical question:

 

16mm Kodachrome film stock, and any Ektachrome 16mm film stock are both exactly 16mm wide. Identical width, identical pitch (distance between sprocket holes), identical acetate cel base thickness. Just different emulsion layers coated on the acetate base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
6 hours ago, Bill said:

So in consideration of what kind of rules or regulations Leonard Tall might be dealing with in his license with Kodak, those two considerations would likely have taken a substantial part of the license agreement.

 

Thanks, Bill.   That makes sense.  I appreciate the clarification and context that was missing.   :thumbsup: 

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

You're welcome.

 

One of the biggest challenges we face trying to make sense of the PGf is to understand the various factors and influencing forces were at play in the late 1960's.  It was a very different time, with different technology and different social attitudes. So trying to make sense of the PGF does really need a sense of context for the era, in technology, in social attitudes, in business processes, etc.

 

Kodak was a giant in the business world, and passionate about it's reputation for excellence in product quality. The company thought of itself as both an industry and social leader, and was aggressive in maintaining that perception. So having a strict lab license with provisions about what could/could not be done, and by whom, is simply a part of their reputation protection. They probably insisted on at least two technicians present to operate the kodachrome developer system precisely because just one person alone could easily do processing of "unauthorized" content, and they were fanatical about avoiding that. Having two people do the process reduced the risk, since at least one of the two might fear to break the rules Kodak laid down, and might report such activity when Kodak inspectors did their inspection visits.

 

Given how common adult images and video are today, one can easily forget how powerful the societal norm was then trying to contain the coming sexual revolution. There were also a lot of city, state, and federal prosecutors diligently trying to prosecute obscenity, and Kodak wanted to make sure they would never be dragged into any such prosecution as an "accessory" to the act, by processing obscene material.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
36 minutes ago, Bill said:

answer to technical question:

 

16mm Kodachrome film stock, and any Ektachrome 16mm film stock are both exactly 16mm wide. Identical width, identical pitch (distance between sprocket holes), identical acetate cel base thickness. Just different emulsion layers coated on the acetate base.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

So Squatchy thinks Roger and Bob spent daaaayyyss glueing hairs individually onto a buck ass naked Heronimous in Bluff creek!? LOL!!!

 

I tell ya.... Roger and Bob missed their calling in Hollywood!

 

How bout the football helmet? Did they just glue hairs onto it too?

 

🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
9 minutes ago, norseman said:

So Squatchy thinks Roger and Bob spent daaaayyyss glueing hairs individually onto a buck ass naked Heronimous in Bluff creek!? LOL!!!

 

I tell ya.... Roger and Bob missed their calling in Hollywood!

 

How bout the football helmet? Did they just glue hairs onto it too?

 

🤣

 

I don’t think that at all.

 

Never thought it or posted it.

 

Which football helmet?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Oh I thought you said they gluuued the hair on?

 

Bob H claimed he wore a old football helmet under the horse hide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×