posted 05-27-2021 01:32 PM               

Could they be ordered by the general public (say via a magazine ad) or bought at the gift shop? Was the public even aware of their existence or availability? Or, were they only available within NASA to employees?

posted 05-27-2021 02:52 PM               

The whole thing is worth reading but here are the relevant sections to your questions:

In the beginning, all NASA photography came into existence at Building 8 at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. Building 8 housed the Photography Technology Lab (the "PTL") where original mission films were immediate sent after the mission's end. ...

...the PTL took the mission film — sold and marketed by Kodak under the brand name "Ektachrome" — and developed it by projecting it onto a 70mm piece of internegative film. The original film was too historic and too delicate to handle often, so this process allowed NASA to create a first set of master internegatives — or, perhaps better stated, to create a master internegative copy from the original film flown in space. The PTL then duplicated the "master" internegatives into additional copies. These duplicate internegatives (now twice removed from the originals) were then used to print images on photographic paper.

Through this process, the PTL used the internegative as an intermediate between what was exposed in the camera on the Moon, and the final print now sought by collectors. [Kodak global product manager Robert] Shanebrook estimates that NASA probably produced about 100 internegative copies and shared them with individuals or companies close to the mission's development. For instance, Kodak, a devoted supplier to NASA, received an internegative copy of the Apollo 11 images, which Shanebrook used in 1969 to create several prints as a memento of his time with Kodak.

With accurate internegative copies in hand, NASA was willing to share prints from those negatives with pretty much anyone who asked. Anticipating high demand, NASA's PTL sought to purchase and deploy several photographic finishing machines. The phrase "photographic printer" is a bit of a misnomer when compared to today's understanding of "something that prints." In 1960s parlance, a "photographic printer" was simply a machine that projected the image from the negative onto paper. From there, the exposed paper was fed into a separate machine that dipped the paper into a series of darkroom chemicals, thereby revealing the image through the magic of chemistry. With NASA, it is highly likely the PTL used a photographic printer called the Kodak Color Printer Model 5S-4, or something similar. ...

The presence of red lettering on the front of most vintage NASA photographic prints is often misinterpreted as being a significant factor to establish that photograph's authenticity. The serial numbers are part of the original print, keyed in by an operator using the internegative number as a reference to keep the print consistent with the official photograph designation given by NASA. Once keyed in, the printer reproduced the number on the photographic paper during production. While the meaning of the serial numbers tells us some about the image depicted in the photograph, it is important not to become too carried away with their importance.

According to at least two NASA offices and one retiree who worked in the PTL, the color of the lettering is not an indication of any significance. Red ink appears most often, but other prints with black or blue ink do not signify anything particularly special. The difference in color is typically attributable to one of two reasons: (i) the type or version of printer used (most likely reason), or (ii) an off-the-cuff decision by the printer's operator.

posted 05-28-2021 02:34 PM            

Naturally, at mission's end, NASA was eager to see the photographs. But the process of converting actual film to a negative and then using that negative to create a photograph was not without risk.

Traditional photography is perhaps best described as a series of chemical processes that involve the element silver and one of the halogens (chemistry fans know to look for these on the second-to-last column on the periodic table).

A lot can go wrong with development, such as inadvertent exposure of film to light, or improper immersion of negatives to darkroom chemicals. If a mistake was made processing the film, there was no mission do over.

To complicate matters more, the mission film was difficult to handle because, at only 2.5 mils thick, it was extremely thin, and was unable to handle too much stress like traditional film, which measured between 5 and 7 mils thick. The reason for such thin film was the limited storage space in the spacecraft: The thinner film not only occupied 40% less space but it increased the number of photographs per role by 40% as well.

In fact, the risk of mistake or error in the developing process was so high that the Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak"), which manufactured the film itself, did not want the responsibility of processing mission film into negatives.

As a result, that responsibility fell to the PTL, and, by extension, to employees like Brinkmann and Holland.

posted 05-30-2021 11:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cozmosis22:
A lot can go wrong with development, such as inadvertent exposure of film to light, or improper immersion of negatives to darkroom chemicals. If a mistake was made processing the film, there was no mission do over.

---

posted 08-25-2022 05:30 PM            

On the point about members of the public receiving NASA "red number" colour photographs, I remember writing to JSC in 1974 requesting pictures of the Skylab missions and being sent a batch of about eight "red number" colour photos, which I still have. These include two launch photos.

I also requested Apollo 15 information shortly after the mission and was sent two "red number" colour prints: a magnificent wide-angle view of the launch, and a classic shot of Jim Irwin standing by the rover with Mount Hadley (mostly in shadow) as a backdrop. I still have those, too.

The last time I looked at the pictures (which are stored in a folder in the dark) I had the impression that the colours have faded slightly in the last 50 years approximately, but they are still reasonably true.