Calvine Photo Hoax Theories

[John J.]

Are we sure that the thing he holds in his hand... is a photographic print.? Not a Xerox?

Photographic print.
Other than two very poor quality transparencies, as found in National Archives ref. DEFE 31/180/1, there is only one known existing Calvine UFO photo- the one in the Original Calvine Photo OP.
This is the photo sent by the Daily Record to Craig Lindsay, PR man at RAF Pitreavie Castle, and retained by him.
Subsequently tracked down by David Clarke (on the right, Lindsay on the left),

it was analysed by Clarke's colleague Andrew Robinson at Sheffield Hallam University (PDF attached of Andrew Robinsons' June 2024 version 5 of his work, below).
There doesn't appear to be much doubt that it has been produced by a film-development photographic process.

The MoD records just say "color" but don't identify the film type by name?

No. There is a handwritten note giving the backstory and some weather details; It was probably written by Lindsay
(reasons given in post #1607) and states that the photos are in colour.

I don't know if Lindsay (or Clarke) have explained why Lindsay's photo is black and white (it may simply be that the Daily Record used the fastest/ cheapest method to provide him with an image).

The only other contemporaneous Calvine material we have from National Archives DEFE 24/1940/1 is a two-page minute from the MoD in London.
The only conclusions mentioned are the identification of two aircraft as Harriers (much discussed here); that "...no definite conclusions" had been made about the diamond-shaped object; no Harriers were flying in that location at that time; and there weren't any other reports of unusual air activity at that place and time.
If, as Lindsay claims, JARIC reviewed the photos/ negatives, we have no record of their assessment.

This might not be unusual- "the UFO desk" might have no "need-to-know" about how JARIC reached its conclusions.

The only other (AFAIK) MoD records concerning the Calvine "UFO" in the National Archives are from DEFE 31/180/1, and concern a later (Dec. 1991) request for drawings and size estimates of the UFO based on the low quality transparencies- the requester states that the original negatives are not available. Some parts are illegible to me.
By this time, a certain Nick Pope was the civilian MoD civil servant at Sec(AS)2a.

Unsure if that might be relevant.

Elsewhere in DEFE 31/180/1, without any text, are two images which I think are from the transparencies. Why there are only two is anyone's guess.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I've done my homework and correcting something I said.

Even though Ilford XP film was meant to be developed with color process chemicals; it was not meant to be printed on color print paper. It was meant to be printed on B&W paper.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1909/product/704/
This is from a data sheet on the Ilford website. It is dated 2018 and is for the newer film - XP2 SUPER. But this is a newer version of the film, not a different film. So I'm confident this is good info for the older version.

PRINT MAKING XP2 SUPER negatives are printed in the same way as conventional black and white negatives. They have superb image quality which will ensure exceptional quality prints, even from subjects with a wide brightness range. Prints from XP2 SUPER negatives have a full range of tones including excellent highlight and shadow detail. XP2 SUPER is designed for use with all black and whitepapers. For best results, print XP2 SUPER on one of the range of ILFORD MULTIGRADE variable contrast papers.

XP2 SUPER roll film is coated on 0.110mm/4-mil clear acetate base with an anti-halation backing which clears during development.

There is no mention a of an orange mask layer. And, if were "designed for use with all black and whitepapers" it wouldn't have an orange mask layer.

If you've never seen color negative film, you may be surprised what it looks like.

As a beginner I was completely puzzled. How do you get color prints from this orange mess?

I've run across further info on this data sheet which may help clear up the confusion about "color" photos.

Negative appearance
Correctly processed XP2 SUPER negatives are usually pink or red-brown and slightly darker than other black and white negatives. Although the exact image colour will depend on the method of processing such variations will not usually affect the image quality.

Processed XP2 SUPER negatives will lose their overall pink colour when washed for a particularly long time or when exposed for long periods to daylight. This affects neither image quality nor printing time. It is caused by the bleaching of the small amount of sensitizing dye that remains in the emulsion after processing.

This color cast doesn't have a bad effect on B&W paper, but it might make these negatives look something like color negatives. They would certainly look different from ordinary B&W negatives.

If someone with only a little knowledge assumed these were color negatives, this might explain.

Adding to the confusion:

XP2 SUPER is a chromogenic film. This means that the dyes which make up the image are formed during development rather than being present in the film or added later.

It is a black and white film which is processed in C41 type processing chemicals alongside colour negative films.

It's a film that uses dyes, as color films do - instead of a silver halide. You process it with C41 type processing chemicals (used for color). And you can even batch process it with color negative film in the same tank.

It sure seems like a color film. Especially if you heard a technician talking about it's similarities with color film... but didn't fully understanding what was said.

So maybe that's how this B&W film - the negatives - were described as color photos. Yet we have a B&W print.


BTW, Why would anyone use XP film?

The extremely wide exposure latitude of XP2 SUPER is the result of the unique relationship between exposure and grain in chromogenic films.
The best balance of sharpness and grain is obtained when XP2 SUPER is exposed at EI 400/27.
However, down-rated or overexposed XP2 SUPER negatives have finer grain, the opposite of that
expected and obtained with conventional films. Up-rated or underexposed XP2 SUPER negatives have only a slight loss in quality.

Exceptional dynamic range, fine grain, and you can "push" it with only a slight loss in quality. Sounds good to me. I should have tried it.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

On the other hand, it's challenging but possible to print color negatives on B&W paper. Use panchromatic paper and filters.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If there's an extant photo, the name the paper will appear on the back surface. Guarantee.

Have the people involved given us the name? It should be a B&W paper. Not a color paper. Did anyone bother to say?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I just found an example of Ilford XP Super negatives.

Is this B&W film? Yeah, it is. The color cast doesn't bother B&W paper. But it looks pretty colorful.

The technicians at the MoD wouldn't be fooled into thinking this is color film. But how about a MoD civil servant at Sec(AS)2a? Is that what happened? Could this be how "color photos" end up being a B&W print (on B&W paper)?




Silver halide film negatives - the regular kind - look like this.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The technicians at the newspaper would have no problem at all making a print from an Ilford XP negative on B&W paper. There's no conundrum if we assume Ilford XP film was used.

The technicians at the MoD wouldn't be fooled for a second by things like:
-A second generation image - a photo of a photo.
-A photo of a print with something pasted onto it or painted onto it.
-A double exposure - accidental or otherwise.
-Dodging an image onto a print in the darkroom
-Stacking two negatives - one with a normal scene and the second with the image of a brightly lit object in a dark environment.

The report doesn't mention anything like this, but you'd think any clumsy hoax would be reported as such. Therefore the UFO is real, or a model, or something on glass.

Anyone looking at the extant print... same thing. These crude methods wouldn't fool an advanced amateur photographer.


BTW, you can't make an accidental double exposure of a daylight scene onto another daylight scene and have it turn out looking like a normal photo. It would be a washed out mess. On the negative, a daytime sky is dark. Another exposure during daylight would make the sky in the negative almost solid black. A brightly lit object set in the daylight sky... ditto. The image of the object would be almost dead black on the negative. It would appear as a ghostly image, at best.

If you attempt a hoax involving a double exposure in the camera, you make a double exposure of a well lit object in a dark environment and a second exposure of a black night sky.

 

[Mendel]

The photo we see is one of these:

• A B&W copy, or photo of a photo, made from a color photo the Daily Record had received and sent to Linsday.

• DR photo lab receives color photo, takes a 2nd generation photo of it using b/w film producing a b/w negative, and then prints that negative on color paper—is that possible?

• A B&W copy made from the original color negatives, if that's even possible.

you can not produce a b/w print on color paper from color negatives

• A B&W print made from original B&W negatives, assuming the MoD records are incorrect.

is this possible to do on color paper?

• A B&W copy of some sort of B&W original photo, again assuming the MoD records are incorrect.

Assuming you meant a color copy of a B&W original:

• DR lab receives B/W photo, takes 2nd generation photo of it on color film producing a color negative, and then prints that negative on color paper

---

For Lindsay's photo to be black&white on color paper, it must have been printed from a negative that did not have color.

To create a negative that does not have color, either the original must've been black&white, or the film must be black&white.

Essentially, that leaves two options:
1) a color copy of a b/w original
2) a b/w copy of a color original

I would have expected Robinson to detect this, and to mention it.

 

[Mendel]

The technicians at the MoD wouldn't be fooled for a second by things like:
-A second generation image - a photo of a photo.
- A photo of a print with something pasted onto it or painted onto it.

Could you comment on whether that's still true if the focus was so bad as to hide the original grain, if that's possible?

 

[Andreas]

The technicians at the MoD wouldn't be fooled for a second by things like:

I'm sure you're right. The problem is that we don't know if the MoD technicians actually conducted a serious analysis of the negatives. After all, this was just another "UFO story" including extraordinary claims, and the MoD quickly concluded that no Harriers were operating in the area at the time of the alleged incident. They likely had more pressing concerns than investigating UFO photos. On the other hand, it's likely that Andy Allan at the Daily Record, with his experience in photography, saw through the hoax.

 

[John J.]

I'm sure you're right. The problem is that we don't know if the MoD technicians actually conducted a serious analysis of the negatives. After all, this was just another "UFO story" including extraordinary claims, and the MoD quickly concluded that no Harriers were operating in the area at the time of the alleged incident.

If the images were reviewed by JARIC as Lindsay claimed, it would have been done according to whatever their protocols were.
JARIC was an RAF-led unit with predominantly armed forces personnel, and wouldn't be in a position to decide what they should take seriously or not (although no doubt JARIC would flag up any findings of particular significance to whoever was tasking their work).
The conclusion that there were Harriers in the photos would be on the advice of whoever formally reviewed the material (supposedly JARIC), so checking if there were Harriers in the Calvine area would probably have been post-analysis.

They likely had more pressing concerns than investigating UFO photos.

Undoubtedly correct.
1990 was at the tail-end of the Cold War, and the USSR had just started the process of dissolving.
(Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union). Iraq invaded Kuwait 2nd August 1990, and the Northern Ireland Troubles continued.

Without any special insight, we can have an educated guess at JARIC's main priorities/ taskings up to that time:

(1) Examining stand-off reconnaissance photos of Warsaw Pact military units, COMECON infrastructure, mainly in the DDR.

Referring to the photographic recce variant of the (even then) antiquated Canberra jet, Wikipedia says

The PR.9s were fitted with special long-range optical photography cameras, reportedly based on those used by the Lockheed U-2, to allow high-altitude photography of targets deep inside Eastern Europe while flying along the inner German border...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Canberra; the PR9 served until 2006.
(NASA operates 3 WB-57 Canberras, allegedly used to survey the area around Langley Air Force Base after reported "drone" sightings in early 2024, see thread Langley AFB video on Reddit & Twitter.)
RAF Germany Harriers, Jaguars and Tornados (and their predecessors) would have conducted shorter-reach recce flights from within FRG.

It's a grim thought, but as well as informing the level of readiness of NATO forces, conclusions from JARIC would have informed targeting decisions.

(2) Interpreting pictures of Soviet/ Russian military aircraft encountered over the North Sea/ northeast Atlantic, looking for any changes in aerials/ "blisters" on the airframe/ external stores etc. Mainly Tu-95 Bear recce/ EW variants, sometimes LRMP or missile carrier types Less frequently Tu-22M Backfire, others.
Examining pictures of Soviet/ Russian warships, but more frequently merchantmen and trawlers in the same areas; Russian "civil" ships were often a cover for signals intercept/ electronic intelligence missions.

Over the years: Tu-95 escorted by Lightning, Phantom, Tornado.

(3) Possibly support of similar recce operations in the southern/ eastern Mediterranean conducted from Cyprus.
Less frequently maybe interpretation of intelligence from elsewhere, e.g. the RAF Belize flight.

(4) Interpretation of images, e.g. identification of individual civilian vehicles of interest, in support of civil authorities in Northern Ireland.

(5) Cooperation interpreting intelligence from some allies.

-Which is why I'm a bit surprised that JARIC were tasked with looking at the Calvine photos at all.

I have idly wondered if the supposed presence of Harriers made a difference.
The MoD "UFO desk" wasn't exactly a well-resourced enterprise, and was ultimately scrapped.

There had been genuine interest in the UFO phenomenon in the 1950s amongst some influential people; Prince Phillip's uncle, Lord Mountbatten, who had been the last Viceroy of "British" India/ Pakistan, was interested in the "flying saucers".
In 1955, Mountbatten submitted a reported sighting by Fred Briggs, who had been working as a bricklayer on Mountbatten's estate; Briggs said

...I suddenly saw an object hovering stationary over the field... ..which then rose vertically, quite as fast as the fastest Jet aircraft I have seen, or faster.
There had been no noise whatever until the Saucer started to move, and even then the noise was no louder than that of an ordinary small rocket let off by a child on Guy Fawkes Night.

The Sun, Emma Parry, 25 September 2017, "ET THRONE HOME Prince Philip's uncle Lord Mountbatten was UFO enthusiast and even documented alien SPACESHIP landing on his estate"
(Note the motif of the silent, hovering UFO making a rapid vertical departure, 35 years before Calvine- practically a UFO meme).
-A senior Royal Navy admiral, whose name escapes me, was also very concerned about/ interested in UFOs in the 50s.

An official UFO desk might have been good PR, and helped the RAF/ MoD answer the question "What are you doing about this?" from such people, and the occasional Member of Parliament responding to a constituent's concerns or claimed sighting.
The official line was that the UFO desk was evaluating whether UFOs had any defence significance.
It probably didn't take too long before it was realised that most UFO reports were very much in what we call the LIZ (low information zone, e.g. a single brief light in the sky) and that more exotic reports probably had more significance for sociology, popular culture/ contemporary folklore (which is David Clarke's interest) and psychology than for defence per se.
No sightings from mainland Britain were likely to be of Soviet aircraft, and any "establishment" interest in aliens waned.

Whatever the sole civilian MoD civil servant thought they were doing, I suspect the other Air Staffs that Sec(AS)2a reported to used the information for other purposes than researching the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors:

-Investigating unauthorised low-level flying.
The UK doesn't have a Nevada desert; low flying is practiced in some areas where there are farms, particularly hill farms. Farmers are compensated for livestock losses that inevitably occur.
Some pilots (thinking of David Fravor's account of buzzing people in his F-18) might have pushed the [regulatory] envelope once in a while. (In 1968, an RAF pilot illegally flew his Hawker Hunter under the top span of Tower Bridge in London).

-Air policing; unauthorised light aircraft/ helicopter flights by e.g. organised crime for drug importation. Again, probably soon seen as unlikely/ vanishingly rare in the context of UK/ NW Europe.

-Losses of parts/ stores from aircraft in flight. Does happen.

-Possible unexpected satellite re-entries. Now covered by space-tracking radar.

-Assessment in the context of any emerging hazards, e.g. hobbyist RC aircraft and rockets, research balloons etc. from universities; use of ground-based lights that might be seen by, or mistaken as, aircraft.

Whatever, I'm wondering if JARIC were involved because the MoD's principle question was not
"What is that flying rhombus?" but
"Who's flying their sodding Harrier at low level near the A9?"

 

[John J.]

If there's an extant photo, the name the paper will appear on the back surface. Guarantee.

I don't know if this (below) is relevant due to my scanty knowledge of photography:

This is taken from Andrew Robinson's June 2024 version 5 analysis.

This is followed by Robinson discussing "the colour problem":

A number is present on the back of the Calvine photo,

Robinson explains its meaning:

I feel we (as in us, collectively) have been a bit sniffy about Robinson's analysis, while ignoring the fact that he is the only person to have examined the Calvine photo in detail and put his findings in the public realm.
Looking at pictures on a computer screen can give us many clues, and many things have been debunked that way, but it is not photographic analysis.
Robinson also discusses the cropping of the picture, and comes up with (to me) a convincing explanation, which both describes the probable extent of the cropping (17% laterally but nil vertically) and is consistent with- and supportive of- his findings regarding the use of a minilab or automatic printer/processor by the Daily Record.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I don't know if this (below) is relevant due to my scanty knowledge of photography:

This is taken from Andrew Robinson's June 2024 version 5 analysis.

View attachment 78598
View attachment 78599View attachment 78600
View attachment 78602


This is followed by Robinson discussing "the colour problem":

View attachment 78604View attachment 78605
View attachment 78606




A number is present on the back of the Calvine photo,
View attachment 78603

Robinson explains its meaning:

View attachment 78607
View attachment 78608


I feel we (as in us, collectively) have been a bit sniffy about Robinson's analysis, while ignoring the fact that he is the only person to have examined the Calvine photo in detail and put his findings in the public realm.
Looking at pictures on a computer screen can give us many clues, and many things have been debunked that way, but it is not photographic analysis.
Robinson also discusses the cropping of the picture, and comes up with (to me) a convincing explanation, which both describes the probable extent of the cropping (17% laterally but nil vertically) and is consistent with- and supportive of- his findings regarding the use of a minilab or automatic printer/processor by the Daily Record.

This is absolutely helpful. I'm convinced that it's Ektacolor paper. And I'll buy that the print was made from a B&W internegative. Such film would have ultrafine grain.

Much different than a copy made from a print.

When you copy a photographic print instead of using the original negative, you get quality issues.
Sharpness - Fine details like textures and film grain appear softer/slightly blurred.

Tonal range - Prints don't capture highlights and shadows as well as negatives, and copying them flattens the image. Highlights may blow out, and shadows get muddy.

Grain - Copies show inconsistent or exaggerated grain. Surface textures, like glossy or matte finishes, will show up. Visible dust or scratches are another hint, as originals from negatives typically don't share those exact flaws.




I'll buy this scenario: A high quality B&W internegative had been made from original color negatives. Someone ran those internegatives through a color printing machine loaded with Ektacolor, because they didn't care about quality. It was just to slam something out. It would look like fried hell, but who cares?

The only thing that bothers me is the grain of the original color negatives. What's-his-name emphasizes the fine grain. What he's talking about is the enlarged grain of the negative. That's what is visible on the print, as I mentioned before. Because it's enlarged, essentially magnified, the grain of the negative is what is noticeable on the print, especially a print of this respectable size. To someone with the experience, the grain of different films is identifiable. It's like a fingerprint.

An internegative wouldn't leave obvious traces. It's a contact print and it itself is ultrafine grained.


But...Really fine grain is not awfully consistent with 35mm color negative film. In 1990, Kodak Ektar 25 would be about the best of the bunch. But it was relatively fine grained.

That's why What's-his-name has speculated about Ilford XP and Kodak Panatomic-X. Two fine grained B&W films.

Did he ever consider that the original film may have been Kodachrome? (Slides) Now that has fine grain.

Color prints of Kodachrome film were possible without making an internegative in 1990. There was a paper called Cibachrome - Ilford Cibachrome.

Or you could go the internegative route to make prints from Kodachrome.

Maybe the tales of "color photos" were describing color prints made from color slides?

Maybe someone - probably the original photographer - made B&W internegatives of Kodachrome slides.? Possible. Why? Don't know.

Making internegatives would make sense because you now have backup. And you can send them off to some second party without worrying about the originals getting damaged or lost. But why B&W internegatives? Because they would be fine grained? Preserve good contrast... That might make sense.

B&W internegatives made from Kodachrome would be fine grained. And you can get a negative image without a hassle. Kodachrome is a positive film. It has no masking layer to get in the way. And so on.

It's the kind of thing a pro or an advanced amateur would do. Which goes with my belief that these photos are hoaxes made by someone with knowhow.

 

[NorCal Dave]

EDIT: I appear to have cross posted with @John J. in response to @Z.W. Wolf questions, so a bit of repetition, but I did include the part where Robinson 2nd guesses his report concerning the grain and the use of Ilford XP.

2) a b/w copy of a color original

I would have expected Robinson to detect this, and to mention it.

I'm leaning this way. Sure, the handwritten MoD memo could have been wrong and confused about the negatives, but it does state "colour photographs" and then negatives:

And the MoD memo that was produced after the negatives were studied only says "photographic negatives":

So, unclear and vague. But if the originals were color, Robinson seems unaware, possibly because all he had was Linsday's remaining B&W photo to look at. One would think he would have mentioned the possibility of the Daily Record making a B&W copy for publication, as they published in both color and B&W. And as I've suggested, if they knew or suspected Linsday would try to fax a copy to London, a B&W photo makes much more sense.

Linsday claimed to have made a paper copy (Xerox) of the photo he had been supplied with from the Daily Record so that he could get it into the fax machine. It appears that did happen, resulting in this MoD faxed version of a paper copy of the photo:

If there's an extant photo, the name the paper will appear on the back surface. Guarantee.

Have the people involved given us the name? It should be a B&W paper. Not a color paper. Did anyone bother to say?

This is from Robinson's original report. It supposedly shows the Kodak stamp on the back, and Robinson identifies it as RC paper:

He further states that there were some scratches on the photo revealing that it was on color paper:

Concluding:

Which would be true IF the original photo was taken with B&W film OR if the Daily Record made a B&W copy by photographing a color original with B&W film, right?

The technicians at the newspaper would have no problem at all making a print from an Ilford XP negative on B&W paper. There's no conundrum if we assume Ilford XP film was used.

The ONLY mention of Ilford XP was from Robinson's original report. He suggest this is likely becasue of the above situation of a B&W print on color paper, which Ilford XP was designed for:

And due to the grain pattern exhibited:

However, Robinson later changed his mind about the grain and the film stock in Clarke's Q&A YouTube video:

however when i've done a closer
11:19
analysis of the grain the original print in the center here if
11:25
i zoom in a bit looks much more like the grain structure of a traditional
11:31
black and white film rather than the grain structure of xb1 or xb2 which which is a much
11:38
finer and a different kind of grain so it's looking more like a traditional
11:44
film but perhaps coarser grain than fp4 which is a hundred iso film so i think

So, what to think?

My new theory, slightly modified from my first one about the photo is this:

1. The original photo is created by whatever means, reflection, models, glass, whatever, on standard color film stock.
2. The color photos are sent to the Daily Record, and are eventually followed by the color negatives, per the handwritten MoD memo.
3. The Daily Record published both color and B&W photos, but mostly B&W. So...
4. The Daily Record made B&W copies of the color photos for possible publication in color, B&W or both.
5. The copy is basically a photo of a photo. A photo with B&W film of a color photo.
6. To simplify the photo department, the Daily Record used the Ilford XP B&W film to create B&W copies because it could be developed with color film and create B&W photos on color or B&W paper. One C41 development system for both color and B&W.
7. When Linsday requested a photo, the printed him a B&W copy created with Ilford XP film stock that could be printed on color paper.

I think that ticks all the boxes. The color photos/negatives mentioned in the MoD memo and the B&W print on color paper. It really answers the whole B&W print on color paper, something that can be done it seems with the right expertise, but is much easier with the Ilford Xp. I kept missing that part about using it to print B&W on color. That's what it's made for. Robinson's 2nd guessing about the grain is the result of the photo being a copy and not a print made from the original negatives.

Just working through the clues.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Could it be that the newspaper staff made the B&W internegatives?



Depends on whether they were:

Following the old practice of printing photos in B&W - known as halftone printing.

Or printing color photos - offset lithography.

In the US, color photos were standard practice by this time. But what about The Daily Record?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I don't know anything about offset lithography so I asked GPT about the process of using Kodachrome versus Kodacolor. I specified Kodachrome because of our special case. A news photographer wouldn't use Kodachrome because you'd have to send it out to a specialty lab to get processed, but the lab at the paper could process Ektachrome or Kodacolor. (I'm specifying Kodak stuff because... Just because.)

If you have GDS - GPT derangement syndrome - please disregard.

But it seems that making internegatives wouldn't be necessary for a negative film, but it would be necessary for a positive film (slides).

In the late 20th century, particularly around 1990, newspapers that printed color photos using offset lithography typically relied on two primary types of film photography:

1. Kodachrome (Color Slide/Transparency Film) — Positive film
2. Kodacolor (Color Negative Film) — Negative film

The processes for each type were slightly different due to the nature of the film, particularly when preparing images for printing. Here's a detailed breakdown:

---

1. Using Kodachrome (Color Slide Film):

Kodachrome is a positive transparency film, meaning it produces a direct color image on the film (no negative).

• Step 1: Shoot the Image:
  
  • Photographer captures images on Kodachrome 64 or similar ISO transparency film.
  • Kodachrome required processing in Kodak's proprietary K-14 process.
  • Results in high-contrast, fine-grain color slides.
    • Step 2: Create Internegative (Usually Required):
      
      • Newspapers could not directly use transparencies in the offset lithography process.
      • A color internegative (made on a specialized color negative film) was typically produced to convert the slide to a workable medium.
      • Internegatives were used because:
        
        • Slides are less flexible for color correction and scaling.
        • They are sensitive to handling and cannot be physically edited.
    • Step 3: Color Separation (CMYK):
      
      • Once the internegative was created, it was scanned using a drum scanner or flatbed scanner.
      • The scanning process separated the image into four distinct layers — Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black (CMYK).
      • Each color channel was printed on a separate lithographic plate.
    • Step 4: Offset Printing Plates:
      
      • Each CMYK separation was transferred onto its own metal offset plate.
      • Plates were mounted onto web offset printing presses, where each color was printed in sequence.
      • The overlapping ink dots formed a full-color image on the paper.
    • 
      

    ---

    
    

    2. Using Kodacolor (Color Negative Film):

    
    Kodacolor is a negative film, where colors appear inverted on the film and must be processed into a positive print.
    
    
    • Step 1: Shoot the Image:
      
      • Photographer uses Kodacolor Gold 200 or similar negative film, processed using C-41 chemistry.
      • Produces color negatives that are easier to work with than slides because they have broader exposure latitude.
    • Step 2: Direct Scanning or Print Intermediary:
      
      • In the 1990s, some newspapers began directly scanning negatives using high-resolution drum scanners.
      • Alternatively, a positive print was created (using standard color printing processes) and scanned for color separation.
      • No internegative was needed because the original negative was flexible enough to correct for color and contrast issues.
    • Step 3: Color Separation (CMYK):
      
      • Similar to the Kodachrome process, color separation was done via scanning, breaking the image into four CMYK channels.
      • Scanners at this time could perform minor adjustments for contrast, color saturation, and tone curves.
    • Step 4: Offset Printing Plates:
      
      • CMYK separations were laser-etched onto metal plates.
      • Plates were mounted in a web offset printing press, applying each color sequentially.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If a newspaper was still using halftone printing (common from the late 19th century to the 1970s and persisting in some smaller publications even later) and needed to convert Kodachrome slides for use in print, the process was complex due to the limitations of halftone technology and the nature of Kodachrome. Here's how it would typically work:

---

️ Step-by-Step Process:

1. Capture the Image with Kodachrome:

• Kodachrome Slide Film (positive transparency) was renowned for its rich colors and fine grain but difficult to work with in traditional newspaper halftone printing.
• The result was a color positive transparency, not suitable for direct halftone conversion.

---

2. Create a Monochrome Internegative or Print:

• Why an Internegative or Print?
  
  • Halftone printing in newspapers (before color) required a single grayscale image, not full color.
  • Kodachrome slides had very high contrast, making direct conversion to halftone difficult.
  • An internegative or a high-quality black-and-white print was often produced to adjust tonal range.

Process Options:

1. Internegative (Color to B&W Negative):
   
   • Create a black-and-white internegative from the Kodachrome slide using specialized large-format film.
   • This allowed for tonal adjustment, dodging/burning, and contrast control.
2. Make a B&W Print:
   
   • Alternatively, print the Kodachrome slide on high-contrast black-and-white photographic paper, then photograph that print to produce a negative.
   • This method was easier for newspaper darkrooms.

---

3. Halftone Screen Creation (Key Step):

• The halftone printing process converts the continuous-tone image into dot patterns of varying sizes.
• Halftone screens (usually measured in LPI – Lines Per Inch) were used.
• Typical newspaper LPI was 65–85 LPI in mid-20th century, giving a grainy appearance.
• The higher the LPI, the more detailed the image (though newspapers couldn't handle high LPI due to cheap paper).

---

4. Creating the Halftone Negative:

• Once the internegative or print was created, it was photographed again through a halftone screen.
• Process:
  
  1. Place the B&W internegative in a camera setup designed for halftone production.
  2. Shine bright, uniform light through the film.
  3. A halftone screen (glass or film with a grid of dots) sits in front of the photographic paper.
  4. The image is re-photographed through the screen, breaking it down into dots of varying sizes.
     
     • Larger dots = darker areas
     • Smaller dots = lighter areas

---

5. Developing the Halftone Plate:

• The resulting halftone negative was developed and used to expose light-sensitive lithographic plates.
• Plates were then etched with acid or created photomechanically to print with ink.

---

Challenges with Kodachrome in Halftone:

• High Contrast:
  
  • Kodachrome slides had a limited dynamic range when converted to B&W.
  • Without adjustments, shadows could block up, and highlights could blow out.
• Loss of Detail:
  
  • The halftone screen's limited resolution often caused fine details to disappear.
• Need for Retouching:
  
  • Newspaper darkroom technicians often manually retouched negatives with brushes or scratched highlights to improve tonal balance.

---

️ Solutions to Overcome Issues:

• Contrast Masks:
  
  • Sometimes a contrast reduction mask (a translucent film layer) was used with the Kodachrome slide to soften the tonal range.
• Multiple Exposures:
  
  • In some cases, two exposures (one for shadows, one for highlights) were combined to improve detail.
• Hand Retouching:
  
  • Retouchers used etching tools, dyes, and brushes to refine the final halftone negative before plate-making.

---

End Result:

• The final B&W halftone image would be printed on newsprint, where the rough paper and low ink absorption further reduced clarity.
• Despite the effort, the resulting image was often grainy, with limited dynamic range — an accepted aesthetic of newspaper photography at the time.

Did the The Daily Record print photos in color or in B&W at the time?

 

[Andreas]

I think that ticks all the boxes. The color photos/negatives mentioned in the MoD memo and the B&W print on color paper. It really answers the whole B&W print on color paper, something that can be done it seems with the right expertise, but is much easier with the Ilford Xp. I kept missing that part about using it to print B&W on color. That's what it's made for. Robinson's 2nd guessing about the grain is the result of the photo being a copy and not a print made from the original negatives.

I think you make a lot of good points here. And I believe we can use the 1994 Craigluscar Reservoir case as a reference point since we have a bit more detail about what happened in that instance.

The witness contacted the Daily Record, giving what I find to be a completely unbelievable account of what he had seen. He handed over a roll of film, which was developed at the newspaper, and they printed some positive color images. The negatives were then sent to the MoD, which likely did little to analyze them before returning them. When the photos were finally published in the Daily Record on February 28, 1994, they were in black and white.

I have almost no knowledge of the exact printing techniques used for a British tabloid newspaper in 1990, but at some point, the color photographs were clearly converted to black and white.

 

[Andreas]

Did the The Daily Record print photos in color or in B&W at the time?

Both—but a similar story published in 1994 was printed in black and white, even though the original photos were in color.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Did the The Daily Record print photos in color or in B&W at the time?

Yes. That's been established multiple times in the various threads (post #421 in original thread):

The Record had actually been printed in "full colour" since 1971. Here's an inside spread from July 1990:

I don't know anything about offset lithography so I asked GPT about the process of using Kodachrome versus Kodacolor. I specified Kodachrome because of our special case. A news photographer wouldn't use Kodachrome because you'd have to send it out to a specialty lab to get processed, but the lab at the paper could process Ektachrome or Kodacolor.

But does any of that help us here? We don't know what type of film was originally used, though it likely wasn't a transparency or slide film and likely wasn't taken by a staffer at the Daily Record. Though @Andreas has made an argument that it's possible. The MoD documents mention "color photographs and negatives" and "negatives", so likely plain print film of some kind. Prints could be made from slides using the Cibachrome/Ilfochrome process, but if the originals were sides of some sort, I think it would have been noted as such.

The big question remains, how we end up with a B&W print on color paper and why? IF the original photo was produced with standard color film and this is accurate, (I don't trust GPT to tell me the truth as opposed to telling me what I want to here):

Kodacolor is a negative film, where colors appear inverted on the film and must be processed into a positive print.

• 
  

  • Step 1: Shoot the Image:
    • Photographer uses Kodacolor Gold 200 or similar negative film, processed using C-41 chemistry.
    • Produces color negatives that are easier to work with than slides because they have broader exposure latitude.
  • Step 2: Direct Scanning or Print Intermediary:
    • In the 1990s, some newspapers began directly scanning negatives using high-resolution drum scanners.
    • Alternatively, a positive print was created (using standard color printing processes) and scanned for color separation.
    • No internegative was needed because the original negative was flexible enough to correct for color and contrast issues.
  • Step 3: Color Separation (CMYK):
    • Similar to the Kodachrome process, color separation was done via scanning, breaking the image into four CMYK channels.
    • Scanners at this time could perform minor adjustments for contrast, color saturation, and tone curves.
  • Step 4: Offset Printing Plates:
    • CMYK separations were laser-etched onto metal plates.
    • Plates were mounted in a web offset printing press, applying each color sequentially.

  [*]

It says nothing about making a B&W print from a color negative that I'm seeing. What it does mention is the use of the common C-41 processing system. It's very vague about when papers started using drum scanners, but maybe the Daily Record had one or maybe not in 1990.

IF the Daily Record had or had access to a C-41 setup, then they could develop color film and if their own staffers sometimes shot B&W, the use of Ilford XP would allow them to use the same C-41 setup. No separate B&W system, though they may have had a legacy one still around.

A B&W photo shot on Ilford XP, is designed to be developed in a C-41 color system and printed on color paper. Which is what we have.

Would a moderate sized UK newspaper in the late '80s early '90s have drum scanner? Or would they have a plain old copy stand? A camera mounted on a stand to photograph a photograph. Simple and effective with all the resolution a daily paper would need. When making B&W copies of color prints, using Ilford XP would mean one C-41 system would handle all developing and printing needs for color and B&W.

I think the original Calvine photos and negatives were in color like the MoD notes say. The Daily Record made B&W copies for publication in either color or B&W or both. They used a standard copy stand to photograph the color print with Ilford B&W film. A standard C-41 process was used to develop and print the B&W copy on color paper, as Ilford XP was designed to do just that. That copy was forwarded to Linsday, who then used a Xerox machine to create a B&W paper copy of the photo to send via fax.

 

[Andreas]

I think the original Calvine photos and negatives were in color like the MoD notes say. The Daily Record made B&W copies for publication in either color or B&W or both. They used a standard copy stand to photograph the color print with Ilford B&W film. A standard C-41 process was used to develop and print the B&W copy on color paper, as Ilford XP was designed to do just that. That copy was forwarded to Linsday, who then used a Xerox machine to create a B&W paper copy of the photo to send via fax.

I don't think we'll ever know for certain why the Calvine photo is in black and white—or even if the "original" photo was in color. But we do know that the Daily Record often converted color photos to black and white before publication. We also know for sure that the photo Lindsay kept all these years wasn't intended for expert analysis—that's why the MoD was given the negatives. He simply asked for a copy and was given one, probably because he wanted to fax it along with a summary of the story.

However, the idea that Lindsay's copy was hastily made just for him doesn't make much sense to me. It seems far more likely that Allan prepared some black-and-white copies for a possible future article and that one of these was given to Lindsay. The copyright claim on the back of the photo looks exactly like what you'd expect on a press photo.

We also have to remember that a tabloid newspaper wouldn't have been interested in investigating a UFO sighting—they were obviously preparing for an article when they contacted the MoD for a comment. Having photos ready makes perfect sense. Then, for some reason, they dropped the story. We can only speculate why.

 

[John J.]

Would a moderate sized UK newspaper in the late '80s early '90s have drum scanner?

I don't know; but I wouldn't be surprised. The Daily Record seems to have been quite a serious paper in business terms (most newspapers have seen large reductions in printed copies sold since the 1990s and The Record is no exception).

The Record has been technologically innovative, and had a substantial circulation:

In 1971 the Daily Record became the first European newspaper to be printed in "full colour" and was the first British national title to introduce computer page make-up technology... ...The switch to colour printing [in 1971, John J.] was overseen by editor Derek Webster and saw the paper's circulation jump to 750,000 copies per day. Printers from around the world, including a team from Asahi Shimbun in Japan, visited the Record's Glasgow plant to learn about the potential of the new printing press.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Record_(Scotland), circulation figures repeated in The Guardian's obituary for David Webster, 01 January 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jan/01/daily-record-glasgow.

For a country with a population of approx. 5 million in 1990 (5,092,190 in 1996, statistics.gov.scot) a daily print run of 750,000 is impressive. To compare, at its peak (mid 80s) The New York Times reached 1,000,000 papers per day

In 1982, circulation numbers were estimated to be 929,000. In October 1985, The New York Times would reach one million daily papers, a record it would hold until September 1986.

Wikipedia, History of The New York Times (1945-1998)

Additionally, the Daily Record had common ownership with the Daily Mirror, a much larger newspaper sold in the rest of the UK

Unlike other major British tabloids such as The Sun and the Daily Mail, the Mirror has no separate Scottish edition; this function is performed by the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail, which incorporate certain stories from the Mirror that are of Scottish significance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mirror

 

[deirdre]

He simply asked for a copy and was given one, probably because he wanted to fax it along with a summary of the story.

why do you keep changing the story? and there is absolutely nothing to suggest he wrote the handwritten summary.

 

[John J.]

However, the idea that Lindsay's copy was hastily made just for him doesn't make much sense to me.

Why not? Lindsay asked if he could have a picture, and if he was asking Allan he was asking someone with access to equipment capable of rapidly duplicating an image; equipment that was probably used very frequently.
Whoever sent the image to Lindsay might have just been extending a little professional courtesy to their RAF PR contact.
Allan or other staff at the Daily Record might, or might not, have made other copies of the Calvine photos, but no-one has said they did and none has come to light.

...there is absolutely nothing to suggest he wrote the handwritten summary.

If the "he" is Craig Lindsay, I think there's strong circumstantial evidence (but not proof) that Lindsay did write it:

The middle redacted name (which precedes "RAF Press Officer Pitreavie MHQ") has two letters with descending features, possibly indicating the name is "Craig Lindsay" (orange circles, above).

David Clarke's article for The Daily Mail (12 August 2022, "Revealed after 32 years, the top secret picture one MOD insider calls 'the most spectacular UFO photo ever captured'", link via Wayback Machine) can be interpreted as supporting the middle name being Lindsay's;
If the middle name is Craig Lindsay, which fits with our knowing that Lindsay was a press officer at RAF Pitreavie Castle, it should be noted there is no mention of rank. This is almost inconceivable in an inter-departmental communication by a member of the British armed forces.

(My emphasis added).

In the Daily Mail article, link included above, Clarke writes

Although the sparse MoD papers on the Calvine sighting were declassified, the names of the photographer (and Craig Lindsay) were removed from the file under Data Protection laws.

The only contact details on the summary are a telephone number for RAF Pitreavie [Castle], also redacted.
This follows the line

Details passed to [redacted- probably "Craig Lindsay"] RAF Press Officer Pitreavie MHQ

We know Craig Lindsay was a press officer at RAF Pitreavie Castle.

 

[Andreas]

why do you keep changing the story? and there is absolutely nothing to suggest he wrote the handwritten summary.

Where am I changing the story? I don't see it. Didn't he ask for a copy of the photo? And as for the PM—sure, we don't know for sure who wrote it, but it was clearly done early in the process, before anyone even examined the negatives. It just lays out some basic facts—exactly the kind of thing Andy Allan would have said when asking for a comment from the MoD.

 

[Andreas]

Why not? Lindsay asked if he could have a picture, and if he was asking Allan he was asking someone with access to equipment capable of rapidly duplicating an image; equipment that was probably used very frequently.
Whoever sent the image to Lindsay might have just been extending a little professional courtesy to their RAF PR contact.
Allan or other staff at the Daily Record might, or might not, have made other copies of the Calvine photos, but no-one has said they did and none has come to light.

Yeah, I see what you mean. My only objection is that we have no proof that the copy Lindsay kept was made specifically for him, do we? As a Daily Record employee, Allan clearly contacted the MoD to get quotes for an upcoming article—anything else seems unlikely. That was standard procedure for a story like this. And even if he did make a copy specifically for Lindsay, wouldn't it make sense to produce an extra one for the paper's own use? If Allan expected the photos to be printed in black and white, to me, a b/w copy would have been the logical choice if Allan anticipated a b/w article.

 

[deirdre]

If the "he" is Craig Lindsay, I think there's strong circumstantial evidence (but not proof) that Lindsay did write it:

obviously lindsay is the RAF press officer. we already know that. anyone doing a summary would write "report passed to Lindsay, and heres his telephone contact number".

a secretary at MOD, Nick Pope, etc etc. i really dont see Lindsay writing the photographic details bit. but thats me.

 

[deirdre]

Where am I changing the story? I don't see it. Didn't he ask for a copy of the photo? And as for the PM—sure, we don't know for sure who wrote it, but it was clearly done early in the process, before anyone even examined the negatives. It just lays out some basic facts—exactly the kind of thing Andy Allan would have said when asking for a comment from the MoD.

probably because he wanted to fax it along with a summary of the story.

he didnt ask for a copy because he wanted to fax it. he asked for a copy because he had no idea what he was supposed to comment on. (based on his testimony anyway). and there is ZERO evidence or suggestion he also faxed a summary. he said he called MOD to tell them this thing looked freaky, they said "fax it to us". they called back and said can you get the negatives and names to us..he called the newspaper and the newspaper sent everything directly to the MOD...not through LIndsay.

Lindsay didnt say "i called and interviewed the boys then looked up the weather of that day and wrote a summary i sent to MOD. " seems like a pretty big detail for Lindsay to leave out.

 

[Andreas]

he didnt ask for a copy because he wanted to fax it. he asked for a copy because he had no idea what he was supposed to comment on. (based on his testimony anyway). and there is ZERO evidence or suggestion he also faxed a summary. he said he called MOD to tell them this thing looked freaky, they said "fax it to us". they called back and said can you get the negatives and names to us..he called the newspaper and the newspaper sent everything directly to the MOD...not through LIndsay.

Lindsay didnt say "i called and interviewed the boys then looked up the weather of that day and wrote a summary i sent to MOD. " seems like a pretty big detail for Lindsay to leave out.

Well, whether the PM was written by Lindsay himself or by someone at the MoD who took his call is impossible to say. But certain things stand out—particularly its informal appearance and the lack of a letterhead, etc. Nevertheless, I'm fairly certain it was written at this early stage. The negatives are mentioned as being handed over to the Daily Record, but there's no mention of them being sent to the MoD, which suggests that hadn't happened yet.

As for Lindsay's main intentions in requesting the photo, we simply don't know. However, as a press officer, he wasn't the person responsible for tracking jet operations or identifying secret aircraft. It would have been standard procedure for him to ask the MoD for such information, just as faxing photos was a routine practice at the time.

In other words, there are several possibilities, but relying too heavily on three-decade-old recollections for precise details isn't a good idea.

 

[deirdre]

Well, whether the PM was written by Lindsay himself or by someone at the MoD who took his call is impossible to say. But certain things stand out—particularly its informal appearance and the lack of a letterhead, etc. Nevertheless, I'm fairly certain it was written at this early stage. The negatives are mentioned as being handed over to the Daily Record, but there's no mention of them being sent to the MoD, which suggests that hadn't happened yet.

i dont personally put much stock in what you are calling a PM. but you do you. to me the odd, somewhat inaccurate wording suggests that it was written later.

 

[John J.]

. i really dont see Lindsay writing the photographic details bit. but thats me.

I think what persuades me that it was written by Lindsay is that it is almost certainly his contact details on the handwritten note, and there are no other contact details which might indicate the note's sender.

Lindsay didnt say "i... ... looked up the weather of that day and wrote a summary i sent to MOD. " seems like a pretty big detail for Lindsay to leave out.

To me, there's noting unusual about that, it sort of goes without saying. If you fax something or send hard copy, you include a cover sheet, an explanatory note.
Perhaps not always, but generally.
The recipient is probably receiving faxes (or mail) from other sources, and won't appreciate having to spend time working out who the sender is. In addition, other people in the office might be using the same machine/ postal address.

Conjecture on my part, but RAF Pitreavie Castle mainly coordinated maritime aircraft which would operate over the seas around Scotland and off the east coast of England, plus had responsibility for RAF/ RN search and rescue helicopters whose work was mainly coastal/ offshore (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Pitreavie_Castle).
The UK's Meteorological Office was at that time part of the MoD. I would guess that detailed weather information was routinely received at Pitreavie Castle (especially because of the SAR helo tasking); if Lindsay asked about weather at a specific location/ date, I don't see why that couldn't be shared.

Allan clearly contacted the MoD to get quotes for an upcoming article—anything else seems unlikely.

You might very well be right, but we know that no Calvine story was printed.
Maybe Allan genuinely wanted to know what the RAF/ MoD thought about the photos, and their conclusions tipped the balance against running the story.

 

[Andreas]

To me, there's noting unusual about that, it sort of goes without saying.

Exactly my point. It's not a detailed statement, just a brief description of the case. And it sounds very much like a summary Allan would have given Lindsay when asking for a comment. Including a cover sheet when faxing a photograph seems like standard practice.

You might very well be right, but we know that no Calvine story was printed.
Maybe Allan genuinely wanted to know what the RAF/ MoD thought about the photos, and their conclusions tipped the balance against running the story.

Absolutely, it's definitely possible that Allan was interested in the case and genuinely wanted to hear what the RAF had to say. He could even have been a "UFO enthusiast"—who knows? But still, as a newspaper employee, his primary job was to find stories to feature in the paper. (Yeah, he wasn't a journalist by as an employee of the Daily Record he was obviously supposed to support his employer while at work.) My point is that when he contacted the MoD, he was likely still considering publishing the story. For one reason or another, that never happened, but making a copy for potential use in an upcoming article seems quite plausible.

 

[deirdre]

Including a cover sheet when faxing a photograph seems like standard practice.

even if it was sent with the photo that wouldn't be considered a fax cover sheet. (and there's zero reason it would not be with the photo in Lindsey's files.)

a cover sheet is
To:
From:
Number of pages:

 

[John J.]

there's zero reason it would not be with the photo in Lindsey's files

Lindsey didn't have any files about Calvine (or any other UFOs) that we know of.
He kept the one photo within the pages of a book, Great Aircraft of the World (Len Cacutt, 1988).

 

[deirdre]

He kept the one photo within the pages of a book, Great Aircraft of the World (Len Cacutt, 1988).

that's a bit on the nose.

 

[Andreas]

Lindsey didn't have any files about Calvine (or any other UFOs) that we know of.
He kept the one photo within the pages of a book, Great Aircraft of the World (Len Cacutt, 1988).

Yeah, we'll never know why Lindsay kept the photo all these years, but as you say, he likely didn't have any old files with interesting reports tucked away in his closet. I'm sure bringing such documents home after retirement wouldn't be allowed. But the Calvine photo wasn't classified in any way and didn't belong to the MoD—it was just a cool photo given to him by the Daily Record. And hoax or not, it's a darn cool photo. You wouldn't really need a reason to keep it.

 

[deirdre]

he likely didn't have any old files with interesting reports tucked away in his closet.

he wouldnt have files but if he wrote the PM as part of his fax, theres really no reason not to stick the pm in the envelope with the photo as he'd have them both together anyway when he faxed them.

it's a darn cool photo. You wouldn't really need a reason to keep it.

yea i would keep it.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Yes. That's been established multiple times in the various threads (post #421 in original thread):



View attachment 78640





The big question remains, how we end up with a B&W print on color paper and why?

My best guess is that a B&W internegative was made by a technician at the newspaper. The original intent was to use it to produce B&W photos on newsprint via the halftone process. They didn't end up going with the story, but they already had the B&W internegatives lying around.

When this bozo guy asked for a copy, someone used the negatives in a machine loaded with Ektacolor paper, because it was easy. You can rely on people to be lazy and negligent when there's no direct motivation to do the job right. And there was no such motivation.

The original film was color. This original film was sent to the MoD. The newspaper had already made a B&W internegative. What's his name requested a copy from the paper. The paper no longer had the original film, so someone slammed out a print from the B&W internegative on Ektacolor because it was easy. It turned out relatively well because it was a contrasty negative. But there was an inevitable color cast.

That's my guess.

I favor Kodachrome as it is a fine grained film, but color negative films were relatively fine grained to down right crappy.

The term "negatives" could have been used negligently by a layman to describe color positive film because of lazy ignorance. Negative = film. Film = negative. Interchangeably. You can trust people to be lazy and ignorant when it comes to technical terms. So it could be that the camera original film was either color negative or color positive film.

Edit: I'm digging up old memories. I was never involved with this at the high school and college newspapers I worked on. But at the time you made a "paste-up" of the entire page, including the photos. Then you sent it off to lab that made one large format B&W negative.

You'd have to use B&W prints for the paste-up. This was circa 1973 to 1975. I remember the college newspaper teacher telling us photographers to make our prints more contrasty. (We didn't have machines. We made and developed all our prints by hand.)

Kodacolor is a negative film, where colors appear inverted on the film and must be processed into a positive print.

• 
  

  • Step 1: Shoot the Image:
    • Photographer uses Kodacolor Gold 200 or similar negative film, processed using C-41 chemistry.
    • Produces color negatives that are easier to work with than slides because they have broader exposure latitude.
  • Step 2: Direct Scanning or Print Intermediary:
    • In the 1990s, some newspapers began directly scanning negatives using high-resolution drum scanners.
    • Alternatively, a positive print was created (using standard color printing processes) and scanned for color separation.
    • No internegative was needed because the original negative was flexible enough to correct for color and contrast issues.
  • Step 3: Color Separation (CMYK):
    • Similar to the Kodachrome process, color separation was done via scanning, breaking the image into four CMYK channels.
    • Scanners at this time could perform minor adjustments for contrast, color saturation, and tone curves.
  • Step 4: Offset Printing Plates:
    • CMYK separations were laser-etched onto metal plates.
    • Plates were mounted in a web offset printing press, applying each color sequentially.

  [*]

It says nothing about making a B&W print from a color negative that I'm seeing. What it does mention is the use of the common C-41 processing system. It's very vague about when papers started using drum scanners, but maybe the Daily Record had one or maybe not in 1990.

Because this is the work flow for using a color negative film to print a color photo on newsprint via offset lithography.

To print a B&W photo on newsprint, from a color positive film or a color negative film, a high contrast B&W negative would have to be produced. That just makes sense from what little I know, so far, about the halftone process. A photomechanical reproduction process.

I've done a new GPT inquiry in regard to using color film for B&W photos on newsprint.

Tonal & Contrast Limitations

Color negatives have a lower contrast range and an orange mask that makes direct B&W reproduction difficult.

Color slides (positives) like Kodachrome have high contrast, but their tonal separation doesn't match what's needed for mechanical halftone printing.

Spectral Sensitivity Differences

Halftone printing required a high-contrast panchromatic or orthochromatic B&W negative, which had well-separated tonal values. Using color film could lead to poor grayscale conversion, affecting detail and contrast in print.

Why do I trust this info? Mainly, because it makes sense.

I'm now doing my own research on this old process. I'll make a post about that later.

IF the Daily Record had or had access to a C-41 setup, then they could develop color film and if their own staffers sometimes shot B&W, the use of Ilford XP would allow them to use the same C-41 setup. No separate B&W system, though they may have had a legacy one still around.

A B&W photo shot on Ilford XP, is designed to be developed in a C-41 color system and printed on color paper. Which is what we have.

This is false. I've already corrected this. Here's the info again.

Even though Ilford XP film was meant to be developed with color process chemicals; it was not meant to be printed on color print paper. It was meant to be printed on B&W paper.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1909/product/704/
This is from a data sheet on the Ilford website. It is dated 2018 and is for the newer film - XP2 SUPER. But this is a newer version of the film, not a different film. So I'm confident this is good info for the older version.

PRINT MAKING XP2 SUPER negatives are printed in the same way as conventional black and white negatives. They have superb image quality which will ensure exceptional quality prints, even from subjects with a wide brightness range. Prints from XP2 SUPER negatives have a full range of tones including excellent highlight and shadow detail. XP2 SUPER is designed for use with all black and whitepapers. For best results, print XP2 SUPER on one of the range of ILFORD MULTIGRADE variable contrast papers.

XP2 SUPER roll film is coated on 0.110mm/4-mil clear acetate base with an anti-halation backing which clears during development.

There is no mention of an orange masking layer. And, if it were "designed for use with all black and white papers" it wouldn't have an orange masking layer. If it were designed for use with standard color papers, it would have to have an orange masking layer.

Also, it demonstrably doesn't have an orange masking layer. It has a color cast due to residual dyes. Not the same thing.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

How did drug stores and 1 hour photo labs print Ilford XP negatives? I still don't know.

However, I've found out that there was a paper specifically made to print B&W images from either color negatives or B&W negatives.

I've found the Kodak data sheet for Panalure
https://125px.com/docs/paper/kodak/g27.pdf

This is a panchromatic, resin-coated, developer incorporated, projection-speed paper designed for making
black-and-white enlargements (or contact prints with
reduced illumination) from color negatives. It is available in
a medium contrast grade for use in a broad variety of
applications, such as portraiture, photojournalism, and
commercial and industrial photography.

PANALURE SELECT RC Paper offers good emulsion
consistency; storage stability; sharpness; and increased
maximum density. The paper provides gray-tone rendering
of scenes recorded on color negative films that is very
similar to that produced by using black-and-white negatives
with conventional black-and-white papers. It is optimized to
give the best possible panchromatic tone rendition when you
expose it with tungsten or tungsten-halogen lamps without
filters. Use only a safelight equipped with a KODAK 13
Safelight Filter.

Although PANALURE SELECT RC Paper is designed
for making prints from color negatives, you can also use it to
print black-and-white negatives.

I have no info on whether neighborhood drug stores and 1 hour photo labs used Panalure paper to make prints from Ilford XP negatives and other B&W films. but it would seem to make sense that they would.

The data sheet says that it could be used with color or B&W negatives. It would make sense that its main purpose would be for anyone who wanted one single printing machine that could print B&W from color or B&W negatives on demand without any hassle.

Fuji may have also made something like this, but I haven't tracked down more info on that.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I've found this YT video that explains the Paste-Up & Camera Negative Process



Printed text was pasted on the paste-up. In a separate step, photos had to be converted via the halftone process ,printed, and then put on the paste-up. It was at that time when the entire paste-up was photographed. You had to have high contrast B&W prints to use in the halftone process. Color prints wouldn't do.

Which explains why the newspaper would make B&W internegatives of original color film, if they intended to print the photos in B&W.

You could also publish color photos with the old Paste-Up & Camera Negative Process but you'd have to use an elaborate process involving offset lithography. This was was done long before 1990. Sunday editions used to print the funny pages in color when I was kid. I'm sure this went back farther than I can remember (circa 1963). They had to go through an expensive process to do so. That's why it was Sunday only.

This may explain why this paper was printing a mix of color and B&W photos in 1990. They were still using the old photomechanical Paste-Up & Camera Negative Process.

The newer digital process major newspapers were using at that time made it easy to produce color photos on newsprint, and the entire edition had color photos. Printing B&W photos was possible, but wouldn't make sense unless the original photo was B&W too.

With the older process it was possible but labor intensive and expensive to print color photos. They printed B&W photos and included at least some color photos - at increased expense - to try to keep up with the times and not look too outdated.

Just speculation, of course.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It's possible that Ilford XP wasn't meant to be printed by local labs, just developed. Then advanced amateurs printed the negatives at home. (That was after my time. I fell in love with Kodachrome 25 in the '70s and never went back to B&W. So I didn't pay much attention to this kind of thing.)


https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry/

When I took up a camera after a few years' hiatus in 1990, I was surprised to discover that I could no longer get a black & white film developed through the nearest camera shop, never mind through the local pharmacy. If memory serves, I was told it would cost $40 for a single film. Naturally, I returned to processing my own film just I had done when I first took up a camera in the early 1970s. The world had moved on, and colour film was the default medium for the general population, even though it was more complex and more expensive; economies of scale had made the less popular B&W film become more expensive.

It was against that background that chromogenic B&W films were introduced by Kodak, ILFORD and Fuji (the Fuji version is almost certainly made by Ilford, and very likely the same emulsion). These provided the photographer a way of using a B&W film that could be developed at any minilab in the local camera shop, drugstore or supermarket. I don't know, but I imagine they weren't wildly popular as surely most people needing to record a scene with a photograph—I don't say 'photographers'—would certainly opt for colour at the same price. I have continued to develop my own films, whether B&W, colour negative or reversal. Having cut my photographic teeth in an era when film was the only option (OK, I could have used glass plates or tintypes!) I was used to the prevailing concept that grain was a nearly unavoidable evil, especially with faster films. Digital didn't exist, and no one 'added grain' to mimic the look of film, nor did film users emphasize grain just to show that they were using film. You tried to minimize the grain because it got in the way of the image. That has stuck with me, and incredibly gritty images irritate rather than impress me. So that's why I have explored the use of a chromogenic film where the image is formed mostly of dye clouds that appear in response to the exposure of the tiny amount of silver present – this offers very fine-grained negatives. But wait a minute, doesn't that mean using the C-41 colour chemicals that are more expensive and a bit more demanding in temperature control? Well, no, it doesn't mean that at all. It turns out that chromogenic films can be developed in B&W chemistry, and even better, they can be pushed and pulled just as traditional silver halide films can, all the while keeping their low grain qualities!