Jump to content
HOLDMYBEER

INTERVIEWS OF FRANK ISHIHARA

Recommended Posts

HOLDMYBEER
Posted (edited)

Just some clarification based on my work with Frank,  those of you who have hands-on experience can confirm or deny... original Kodachrome was K-11 process and in 16mm was phased out about 1961. It was replaced by Kodachrome II requiring K-12 process. It is my understanding from Frank that K-12 process for 35mm is the same as K-12 process for 16mm. The same machine does the job but the mechanical details of film transport are adjusted for the respective films.

Edited by HOLDMYBEER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
3 hours ago, HOLDMYBEER said:

It is my understanding from Frank that K-12 process for 35mm is the same as K-12 process for 16mm. The same machine does the job but the mechanical details of film transport are adjusted for the respective films.

 

^^^ Correct.

 

As far as the K-11 process, it appears that Dynacolor still used that process for several years after it's phase-out around '61 and '62.

 

They had formulated their own film called Dynachrome which required K-11 processing and acquired a licensing agreement with Kodak to do so.

 

Eventually they acquired the K-12 process as well. Its hard to know exactly when Dynacolor ceased all K-11 processing or how long the overlap period was.

 

Which brings us back to Sawyer's in Portand, Oregon.

 

From Wiki;  Sawyer's, Inc. was an American manufacturer and retailer of slide projectors, scenic slides, View-Master reels and viewers, postcards, and related products, based in Portland, Oregon. Founded in 1914 as a photo-finishing company, Sawyer's began producing and selling View-Masters in 1939, and that soon became its primary product. It later diversified into other photographic products, mostly related to film transparencies, and established manufacturing plants in Europe, Japan and India.

 

Here's what a view-master was/is: View-Master was first introduced at the New York World's Fair in 1939. Intended as an alternative to the postcard with 7 3D Kodachrome images, it was originally marketed through photo shops, stationary stores and scenic attraction gift shops. The View-Master system was invented by William Gruber, an organ maker and avid photographer who lived in Portland, Oregon. He had the idea to use the old idea of the stereoscope and update it with the new Kodachrome color film that had just hit the market. A chance meeting with Harold Graves, the president of Sawyer's, Inc. (a company that specialized in picture post cards) got the idea off the ground and quickly took over the postcard business at Sawyer's. 

 

Toronto_view-master.thumb.jpg.22c99e8fcf98894e99727a27d94e16ca.jpg

 

In 1966, Sawyer's was acquired by New York-based (GAF), and its product lines and facilities were taken over by GAF. It was a subsidiary company of GAF until 1968, when it became simply a division of that company, renamed the GAF Consumer Photo Division. It was at this time also (1966) that Sawyer's ceased its Kodachrome and K-11 processing line and instead went with Ektachrome and similar films which required the E-6 process.

 

It appears that 35mm Kodachrome film could be sent to Sawyer's for processing during the time up until 1966 when the K-11 process was no longer available there.

 

If this information is indeed accurate, I think we can safely cross Sawyer's off the list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
15 hours ago, PBeaton said:

Catmandoo,

 

 

You mention you have Kodachrome that was processed, this might be a silly question, but can you confirm it is actually Kodachrome ll which requires K12 processin'.

 

Pat...

 

Yes. Kodachrome  II. Kodachrome II goes back a ways in time. I am not able to determine the processing chemistry on the Kodachrome II  that I have that were developed by TALLS in 1963, 1964 and 1967.  I expect to have a time table on Kodak chemistries in a week.

 

Technicolor had 10 labs in the US in 1967.  West coast had Hollywood, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno and Seattle.

 

I went to the great depository of really old, bad and expired films..........ebay.   I found 16mm Kodachrome II,   process before 1961 with a K-11 processing.   I found 2 films, Kodachrome II,  process before May & Oct. 1965 with K-12 processing.

 

Please make a determination between the film and processing. "KII' looks short for the film  Kodachrome II as compared to "K-11", the processing chemicals.

Kodachrome II.

K-11 & K-12. The last soup was K-14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

As I said before, there's probably a lengthy overlap of product and process during the phase out period. Here's a general chart.

Product timeline

Film Date
Kodachrome film 16 mm, daylight (ASA 10) & Type A (ASA 16) 1935–1962
8 mm, daylight (ASA 10) & Type A (ASA 16) 1936–1962
35 mm and 828, daylight & Type A 1936–1962
Kodachrome Professional film (sheets) daylight (ASA 8) and Type B (ASA 10) 1938–1951
K-11 process
Kodachrome film 35 mm and 828, Type F (ASA 12) 1955–1962
Kodachrome Professional film 35 mm, Type A (ASA 16) 1956–1962
Kodak Color Print Material Type D (slide duping film) 1955–1957
K-12 process
Kodachrome II film 16 mm, daylight (ASA 25) and Type A (ASA 40) 1961–1974
8 mm, daylight (ASA 25) and Type A (ASA 40) 1961–1974
S-8, Type A (ASA 40) 1965–1974
35 mm and 828, daylight (ASA 25/early) (ASA 64/late) 1961–1974
Professional, 35 mm, Type A (ASA 40) 1962–1978
Kodachrome-X film 35 mm (ASA 64) 1962–1974
126 format 1963–1974
110 format 1972–1974
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutPools

Can someone please explain to me, a novice of all things Bigfoot, what in God's name is the big deal about the who/when/where of the processing/developing of the PGF? I am completely bewildered by this topic. And if it's been covered and discussed a million times before on this or other sites can you just do me a solid and provide a link for the ignorant, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale
26 minutes ago, ThinkAboutPools said:

Can someone please explain to me, a novice of all things Bigfoot, what in God's name is the big deal about the who/when/where of the processing/developing of the PGF? I am completely bewildered by this topic. And if it's been covered and discussed a million times before on this or other sites can you just do me a solid and provide a link for the ignorant, please?

 

Welcome ThinkAboutPools! I've been interested in this subject since the early sixties and was a  junior in high school when the PGF was shot. Being familiar with the state-of-the-art in movie ape costumes, as in the original "Planet of the Apes", the still photos in Argosy Magazine had me pretty well convinced that the subject in the film was a real Bigfoot. Any doubt that remained was dispelled by Bill Munns' book, "When Roger Met Patty", as well as meeting Bob Gimlin. WRT the subject of this thread I am as mystified as you, and this is not the first thread to exhaustively deal with it. As it is said, different strokes for different folks!;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
6 hours ago, ThinkAboutPools said:

Can someone please explain to me, a novice of all things Bigfoot, what in God's name is the big deal about the who/when/where of the processing/developing of the PGF?

 

The PGF is the best piece of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. There are those who question its legitimacy by claiming it's a hoax. Having failed to prove it's a hoax via claims of the subject being a man in a suit, or by studying the proportions and various other parameters of the creature, they have resorted to attacking the development of the film itself.

 

They're just grasping straws IMO...  :)

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

For me personally,  I think the film is very good but not conclusive.  I do not believe it’s possible to prove BF based on the PGF.   I still hold it in high regard and think it’s the best their is.   I dig into the timeline because:

1) I find it interesting.

2) As laid out it does seem a very tough chain of events to pull off.

3). With a film of this importance to BF I think it’s important to know the provenance.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill
12 hours ago, ThinkAboutPools said:

Can someone please explain to me, a novice of all things Bigfoot, what in God's name is the big deal about the who/when/where of the processing/developing of the PGF? I am completely bewildered by this topic. And if it's been covered and discussed a million times before on this or other sites can you just do me a solid and provide a link for the ignorant, please?

Her's the short version of the issue:

 

The film used to film the PGf was Kodachrome II type film, and only Kodak (plus a few properly licensed labs) could process it. This is as compared to Ektachrome type film, where any commercial lab could buy the E-6 chemicals and process such film. So with a very limited number of labs who could process Roger's Kodachrome film, the question is: "Could he have gotten it processed between Friday, when he filmed the encounter, and Sunday morning, when he and others watched the processed film."

 

It is reported Roger sent the film from Northern California to Washington State Friday evening, but documentation on that delivery is lacking. Al DeAtley, Roger's brother-in-law, received the film and actually arranged the processing, either at the Technicolor Lab in Seattle, or the Kodak Palo Alto Lab, but neither lab is reported to be processing Kodachrome film on Saturday.

 

So, people advocating the film is a hoax often claim the film was not shot on Friday, october 20, 1967,  that the claim of filming on that day is a lie, and the lie proves the film was hoaxed. Advocates for the film being authentic usually try to offer the theory that the processing was simply done as a special order, so the usual lab procesing schedule was simply adjusted for the special order.

 

That's what the timeline issue boils down to. Does the processing schedule allow or dispute the claim the film was shot on Friday October 20?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Good summary Bill.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

thanks. just trying to stick to the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
6 hours ago, Twist said:

For me personally,  I think the film is very good but not conclusive.  I do not believe it’s possible to prove BF based on the PGF.   I still hold it in high regard and think it’s the best their is.   I dig into the timeline because:

1) I find it interesting.

2) As laid out it does seem a very tough chain of events to pull off.

3). With a film of this importance to BF I think it’s important to know the provenance.

 

 

 

4) You're a skeptic. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Bill said:

Her's the short version of the issue:

 

The film used to film the PGf was Kodachrome II type film, and only Kodak (plus a few properly licensed labs) could process it. This is as compared to Ektachrome type film, where any commercial lab could buy the E-6 chemicals and process such film. So with a very limited number of labs who could process Roger's Kodachrome film, the question is: "Could he have gotten it processed between Friday, when he filmed the encounter, and Sunday morning, when he and others watched the processed film."

 

It is reported Roger sent the film from Northern California to Washington State Friday evening, but documentation on that delivery is lacking. Al DeAtley, Roger's brother-in-law, received the film and actually arranged the processing, either at the Technicolor Lab in Seattle, or the Kodak Palo Alto Lab, but neither lab is reported to be processing Kodachrome film on Saturday.

 

So, people advocating the film is a hoax often claim the film was not shot on Friday, october 20, 1967,  that the claim of filming on that day is a lie, and the lie proves the film was hoaxed. Advocates for the film being authentic usually try to offer the theory that the processing was simply done as a special order, so the usual lab processing schedule was simply adjusted for the special order.

 

That's what the timeline issue boils down to. Does the processing schedule allow or dispute the claim the film was shot on Friday October 20?

 

I don't think the reason behind the secrecy is quite as simple....or as minor/trivial as that, Bill. 

 

Roger's film simply being put ahead of other people's films wouldn't really account for Al's 52-year long "memory lapse", or his reluctance to discuss the matter. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

a special order could include bribes and coercion

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
1 hour ago, Bill said:

a special order could include bribes and coercion

 

 

Cant tell SY nothin'   😂🤣😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, Bill said:

a special order could include bribes and coercion

 

I don't think that was all there was to it, Bill. Al had a pretty harsh reaction in his interview with Greg Long...when Long made his observation about how good Al's memory was concerning Roger...and how vacant it is, regarding the development of the film. 

 

And, I just don't see how simply having Roger's film developed ahead of other people's films would elicit such a reaction...so many years after the fact. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Twist said:

 

 

Cant tell SY nothin'   😂🤣😂

 

And you can't even tell that you're a skeptic... 😂

 

'Twist'.....the skeptical gift...that keeps on giving.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...