Film subjected to vacuum testing

[JayUtah]

As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.

Interesting, because I've always been told it was the E-3 process.  Michael Light writes that for some of the rolls, the developers took some liberties with the process to try to achieve various enhancement effects.  He says this has rendered the camera originals somewhat unstable.

The black-and-white photography was on negative.

[smartcooky]

As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.

Interesting, because I've always been told it was the E-3 process.  Michael Light writes that for some of the rolls, the developers took some liberties with the process to try to achieve various enhancement effects.  He says this has rendered the camera originals somewhat unstable.

The black-and-white photography was on negative.

Technically, it could have been either.

E-4 was introduced in 1966, and E-3 wasn't phased out until 1974, so both systems ran concurrently during the time of the of the  Apollo landings. Furthermore, the two processes are so similar that the Ektachrome emulsions of the time could be processed using either with very little modification to techniques and processing times.

[smartcooky]

As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.

Interesting, because I've always been told it was the E-3 process.  Michael Light writes that for some of the rolls, the developers took some liberties with the process to try to achieve various enhancement effects.  He says this has rendered the camera originals somewhat unstable.

The black-and-white photography was on negative.

Technically, it could have been either.

E-4 was introduced in 1966, and E-3 wasn't phased out until 1974, so both systems ran concurrently during the time of the Apollo landings. Furthermore, the two processes are similar enough that the Ektachrome emulsions of the time could be developed using either process with some modification to techniques and processing specifications (to Process Ektachrome 3 in E-4 you left out the film re-exposure step because it had a reversing agent, you had to cut the developing time down by about 20% and run the developer temperature about 6° higher... 30°C instead of 24°C)

[apollo16uvc]

As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.

Interesting, because I've always been told it was the E-3 process.  Michael Light writes that for some of the rolls, the developers took some liberties with the process to try to achieve various enhancement effects.  He says this has rendered the camera originals somewhat unstable.

The black-and-white photography was on negative.

Where some of the films pushed to pseudo-increasing their sensitivity? I know the dim-light photography was taken on b/w negative film and heavily pushed to 6400 or I think even 12800.

[smartcooky]

As far as I know Apollo used exclusively Ektachrome colour slide film, not negative. They would have used the E-4 process.

Interesting, because I've always been told it was the E-3 process.  Michael Light writes that for some of the rolls, the developers took some liberties with the process to try to achieve various enhancement effects.  He says this has rendered the camera originals somewhat unstable.

The black-and-white photography was on negative.

Where some of the films pushed to pseudo-increasing their sensitivity? I know the dim-light photography was taken on b/w negative film and heavily pushed to 6400 or I think even 12800.

That will be the Kodak 2485 recording film, the nominal speed was 1600 ASA.

[JayUtah]

Technically, it could have been either.

E-4 was introduced in 1966, and E-3 wasn't phased out until 1974, so both systems ran concurrently during the time of the Apollo landings.

I know that much is true, and I can make a case why they would want to use E-3.  But now I'm interested in what the historical fact is.  That means a fun weekend research project.

[bknight]

Has anybody seen this new article at Aulis?
https://www.aulis.com/vacuum.htm
I'd be very interested to hear some views.

Hope everybody is keeping safe and well.

Fatally flawed.

That was not the camera used.
They performed the depress/repress cycles and then exposed the film. That is not remotely what happened.
They did not verify that they used the same development process.
They did not account for the colour calibration charts included in Apollo film. Nor did they reason WHY those colour calibration charts were included in the first place. It was exactly to account for such colour space variation and correct for it.

And so on. I can't be bothered with more. Those idiots simply don't care about the facts.


Stay safe, be well.

ETA: Oh and Marcus Allen in involved, the lying ****. That is an immediate red flag.

I agree with your thoughts, he is a snack oil salesman, who will and does say anything true or not about Apollo.  Most of his work is deceitful presentation that look glossy, but only to those who don't want to research the truth.

[JayUtah]

That means a fun weekend research project.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750007872.pdf

This is cool.  It's specific to Apollo 16, but it calls out the ME-4 (motion-picture variant of E-4) for the Ektachrome ASA 160, type FF emulsion.  I believe Apollo 11 used Kodak SO-168, which is the EF emulsion.  As of Kodak's documentation in 1972, it calls for the ME-4 chemicals.

Here's something from American Cinematographer, the trade magazine for professional motion picture directors of photography. https://ascmag.com/articles/flashback-photographing-apollo-11

When the historic film was delivered to our laboratory, all was in readiness. The 16-35-70mm Ektachrome SO-368 color film exposed on the moon — a total of 785’ — was placed in the High Speed Equipment Company processor using the Kodak ME-2A 75 chemistry. This unit, extensively modified by NASA, essentially is two machines employing a single set of chemical tanks. It is capable of processing 16mm, 35mm and 70mm film footage simultaneously or separately at a rate of 35’ per minute.

The 16mm Ektachrome SO-168 motion-picture film returned from the moon was processed by a similar piece of equipment using the Kodak M E-4 elevated temperature chemistry, at a rate of 90’-100’ per minute.

Within minutes, a deep sigh of relief echoed through the laboratory. The processed camera stock emerging from the processors was good.

[apollo16uvc]

Some time ago I read a document related to the space shuttle. They had several film magazines inside and outside the shuttle, I dont remember how long this mission lasted but i'd say several days as usual?

From what I remember the results showed a higher base fog and maybe also different contrast and spectral sensitivity properties. But nothing destructive, or that couldn't be corrected for when making internegatives/interpositives with filters.

[JayUtah]

What effect do you suppose the thickness of the base has on fogging and other possible detriments?  the film in the Aulis photo looks like a standard base thickness of 0.4 mm or so.  The films Kodak produced for space and air reconnaissance use was much thinner, typically less than 0.2 mm.  We have some at the aerospace museum I sometimes volunteered at before the quarantine.  It's amazingly flimsy.

[apollo16uvc]

This is usually called "film base plus fog", which is a combination of the actually density of the film base plus the randomly developed but unexposed silver crystals. It varies according to the characteristics of the emulsion and the developer activity.

To start with, the density of a photographic emulsion equivalent to a neutral density of one f stop is .30.

Sheet film base will have a density of around .04 or .05.

Roll film base will be around .03 or .04., rarely less.

35mm film base is deliberately dyed to a neutral grey with a density of somewhere between .25 to .28. The reason for this that the manufacturer cannot "practically" use an "anti-halation" backing because the thickness would would be too great for the long rolls of film, therefore the grey film base functions to prevent or reduce halation!

When film is developed, the developers not only reduce the exposed emulsion to appropriate levels of metallic silver, but a small amount of metallic silver is randomly reduced from the un-exposed silver halides, this is usually called "developer fog". This may add anywhere from .02 to .05 density units (rarely even more than that).

The combination of these is commonly called "film base plus fog" or sometimes abbreviated as "FBF or FB+F".

With a fine quality roll film base, a thin high resolution emulsion, and a low activity developer, the FBF may be as little as .05 or .06. On the other hand a 35mm film with a high speed emulsion and a very active developer, the FBF could be could be anywhere from .32 to .34 possibly more, or a neutral density in excess of 1 f stop!

FBF gets higher and higher he more a film expires. Hence films exposed several decades ago but only just being developed now out of intrest on their content have a high base for. I think this is resultant of temp changes, emulsion simply getting older and radiation affecting the film.

Kodak has several documents wherein they detail the higher base-fog as resultant from airport scanners.

[apollo16uvc]

Overall, radiation will increase the film's base fog and temperature changes will cause colour shifts.

But again, nothing destructive or that couldnt be fixed with filters and internegatives/positives.

[JayUtah]

Thanks, that's very informative.  Of course airport x-ray machines involve considerably more energy than occurs naturally.  If fogging from surveillance x-rays is not a problem, the  longer wavelengths of naturally-occurring x-rays and considerably smaller flux certainly won't be an issue.

[apollo16uvc]

The effect of space radiation on film

Table Vl. Time Spent by Sample Cassettes in Different Locations
Canister Location1 Location2 Location4
Can1 52 hrs. 13rain. 0 hrs. 76 hrs. 14min.
Can2 75 hrs. 52 rain. 0 hrs. 52 hrs. 34 rain.
Can3 99 hrs. 7 rain. 2 hrs. 27 hrs. 20 min.
Can4 99 hrs. 7 min. 29 hrs.20 min. 0 hrs
Can5 99 hrs. 7 min. 29 hrs.20 min. 0 hrs
The actual rad(tissue) dose recorded per dosimeter location is shown in appendix A. The
dosimeter dosages are proportional to the dosage absorbed by flight film. The estimated
rad(tissue) absorbed by each canister as related to dosimeter dosages is as follows:
=Canister1 - 341 mrad
=Canister2 - 325 mrad
=Canister3 - 313 mrad
•Canister 4 (Bag)- 363 mrad
=Canister 5 - 363 mrad


"6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The effectsof radiationfor STS-48 are apparentinthe final imagesproducedby the high
speed(above 400 ASA) flightoriginalfilms. The colorfilms,7296 and 5030, exhibitedan
increasein minimumdensityand a decrease incontrast. When seen inthefinal image,
shadowswouldappear grainyand ambiguousinthe darkerdetail. Flatnessinthe tonalrange
is theeffectofthe loweredcontrast. The blackandwhitefilms,5454 and5453, and color
negativefilm,6028, displayedidenticaleffectsonlyto a lesserdegree. Reversalfilm5020 was
notsignificantlyaffectedbythe radiation.All colorfilmsexhibiteda shiftincolorbalance. The
colorshifts,increasesinbase exposureand decreasesincontrast,are functionsofthe film's
representativespeed. While 6028 was the leastaffectedofthe negativefilms,it shouldbe
notedthat reversalfilm5020 showedthe leastapparentdamage (becausethe effected partof
reversalfilmis beyondthe usefuldensity"

[raven]

The photos show plenty of signs of radiation exposure.
Just non-ionizing wavelengths of a very narrow, particular band.