There is a method of making color photos by filming the subject three times on three sheets or frames of black and white film through filters of the three primary colors, then after development, print the three images to either color paper or transfer them to a sheet of color postive transparency stock by placing each color filter on the enlarger lamp or light box with it's matching B&W picture.

Have any of you used this method with your Graflex camera?

Alternatively, a three way beam splitter can be placed behind the lens and a purpose built camera body used which houses three rolls or sheets of film (with their filters) to be exposed simultaneously so objects with some movement to them can be captured. This was the construction of the Technicolor cameras of Hollywood; so three way beam splitters have been invented, but I don't know how to make one.

I believe Technicolor did this because B&W was fast enough for moving pictures at a time when color was not. But the idea behind doing stills in this method seems to be that B&W films create a lot more contrast than color materials so the final appearance is much more dramatic. That is the part I wanted to ask about. If you have used this method, did you find the result to have a different appearance than straight color?

Funny you should ask. If you don't read French, its time you learned.

Go here: http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/

I did not expect the color to look so unnatural! But some of those pictures are bichrome instead of trichrome, so of course they can not be expected to give true color.

Something like a tree with branches moving in the breeze as that first picture on the French page is going to have an out-of-register appearance if the multiple exposure method is used.
Maybe I will read up on beam splitters - how complicated can they be?

It took me awhile to find my way navigating through that site. Some of the pictures on other pages have quite good color.

Brian Albin wrote:

I did not expect the color to look so unnatural! But some of those pictures are bichrome instead of trichrome, so of course they can not be expected to give true color. Something like a tree with branches moving in the breeze as that first picture on the French page is going to have an out-of-register appearance if the multiple exposure method is used. Maybe I will read up on beam splitters - how complicated can they be?

Tricrhomy with beam splitters is very hard.

Alignment is critical, not easy.

Filtration is problematic.

Getting correct exposure on all three emulsions isn't easy either.

And, oh yes, unless a lens considerably longer than normal is used a retrofocus lens is needed. Retrofocus lenses for larger formats are quite uncommon. The TTH lenses made for the original tripack Technicolor cameras seem to have been the first retrofocus lenses made.

It does sound like quite a challenge. Thanks for the warnings Dan.

This was demonstrated in a photo magazine a long time ago. As I recall, the point was to find a scene where there was something moving in the scene, e.g. leaves or water flowing.

Since the camera was held still on the tripod those non-moving elements in the scene turned out normal in color. But, the moving elements had different colors, depending on which filters had been used before that exposure.

I never tried it myself. I'd be interested in knowing if this is the result anybody gets who tries it.

Alec, follow the link in my first reply. It will take you to Henri Gaud's site. He's doing trichromy with sequential shots, and some of his images show the effect.

I saw those, Dan. The ones I remember were taken on current color film and the parts that moved were highly colored. Maybe it was more sunlight, etc.? After seeing these, I intend to try it myself.

Alec, I have seen photos such as the ones you describe. Usually water shots, using RGB filters. The filter factors would be a PITA, if you want my opinion. The effect is really cool, though, if you can pull it off.