Why do some film collectors buy and keep faded prints ?

[David Hardy]

I have noticed on ebay and elsewhere that faded prints are still being sold and purchased . Sometimes at highly inflated prices . I am just a bit curious as to the reasons why some collectors buy and collect such copies . Is it because of rarity value , or because the movies are not available on any other format with good colour or simply because the movie is on actual film or else just plain nostalgia ?

[Dominique De Bast]

I would say for different reasons : rarity of the print, material that improves the picture (blue filter, lamp that corrects the colours), ignorance...Keep also in mind that Alberto, in Italy, can rescue several kinds of filmstock and bring some colours back (I sent him several films and the results are good).

[Graham Sinden]

David, I think the last point you make is very true.

One of the best examples I could give you is the 400ft Alien cutdown. Almost all copies have bad fade but this title always sells. It's a title that just has that cult following despite that every one you see is Pink, but everyone wants it. Star Wars is another.

[Steve Klare]

There are some films that are so personally special, that it means something to have an 8mm or 16mm print: even a digest, even a little road-weary, even when I already own it feature length as a Blu-Ray or DVD.

This even goes to explain why people buy sourced from digital prints when on the surface of it, it's basically the same as watching it from the disk. For most people the surface view is absolutely true, but for a film collector, it's not just the movie but the medium as well. I project disks all the time: they are enjoyable to see, but not a lot of fun to show. (There is a difference between seeing and showing, and the automatic nature of digital presentation takes a lot of the challenge out of the showing part.)

[Osi Osgood]

Your right, Steve. When I pop a blu-ray in the ole machine, we'll watch it, to be sure, but projecting s film? That is an event! Usually it's due to a print being a rarity, at least for me, but then it creates an all new crusade for me, buying and buying until I find one with passable color.

[Graham Ritchie]

To answer your question David, because they are nuts

mmmm.....wait a minute someone might question "MY" sanity for running a 100 year 35mm projector and five deck platter in the garage Ah! well nobody is perfect

[Steve Klare]

Well, Graham

-If we were to make film collecting a sport, I'd say you are an Olympian!

I would never go 35mm, but I have to admit, I really admire the people who do! (I know a couple of 'em, too!)

[Alan Paterson]

I don't get it either. If I buy a print off EBay in 'good condition' which turns out to be pink, I just send it back as it's only going to get worse.

[Lee Mannering]

Movie Magnetic did a colour treatment on my Alien prints, yes I have a few of the 400 as you do. Upon return they are back to pretty much how I remember the colour so a huge thank you to the skill of Alberto allowing me to relive the nostalgia of the 80's screenings which were many.

The bonus today is that some of us have HID lit projectors and with these type of lamps it helps improve pink film projection. I wouldn't be without my dual gauge Eumig sound projectors that have HID lamps. The lamps also make black and white rather beautiful.

My 84 year old Pathe Vox 9.5 sound projector also has one fitted and lifts vintage films to a new level.

[Rob Koeling]

I don't really understand the attraction of faded prints either, but some people have quite specific reasons. One that I came across:
At some point I ended up with a large stash of full length 35mm prints (don't ask, that sometimes happens by accident). Most of it from the 50's and 60's and of particular genres that I wasn't too interested in. Some prints could be described as 'the wrong film of the right director'. A handful of great and highly desirable films as well. Anyway, a lot of material to store, especially when you are a student in rather limited accommodation. The national film archive was interested in a few handfuls of prints. They couldn't offer money to buy, but when I suggested that I would be willing to swap for a similar number of 16mm prints of their choice that were excess to their needs, I managed to make an arrangement. I made a list of all the remaining prints that I wanted to get rid off, and priced based on condition. Meaning an almost symbolic price of, say, $25 for a faded print. Expecting to get only local interest, I was quite surprised to get a few inquiries from abroad. One of them was from Switzerland for a print of a movie starring John Wayne. I had watched the print before listing it and it was not exactly a great film and very faded. I could just about sit through it out of curiosity, but was looking forward to vacating the space it occupied in my room. He didn't want to hear more about the condition, other than that it was run-able and wanted me to put it in the post straight away. Even the fact that it needed more than $100 in stamps to get it there didn't dampen his enthusiasm that he finally found a print of this film. When I asked him what the attraction was, he told me that in an auction he bought the jacket that John Wayne wore in this film, and that he was looking forward to screening the film at home while wearing that jacket .
He was genuinely pleased with it and I was pleased to be able to be of assistance. And I realised that people might have unexpected reasons to want something that is pretty much worthless to me. All is well that ends well

[Mike Newell]

I don’t really keep faded or pink prints. Few of the exceptions are Film Office Pink Panther prints which surprisingly consist a lot of pink anyway but are bearable to watch Only when you compare the DVD versions do you realise how prints have changed.


Has anyone tried this solution?

https://warm-glass.co.uk/cbs-dichroi...lear-p-71.html

[Clark Teddles]

This even goes to explain why people buy sourced from digital prints when on the surface of it, it's basically the same as watching it from the disk. )

I strongly agree with this. A digitally-sourced print is just not anywhere near as great as a photochemical print. If it's content that isn't available on film at all, I understand the need/want to convert it to film. Nothing more charming than a photochemically-done print.

[David Hardy]

There is some very interesting replies on this thread to my question . Thanks to all who took the time to respond .

[Osi Osgood]

Rob, that was a very interesting post!

[Steve Klare]

The problem with comparing different formats and processes is given the variability of their quality, it's often hard so say one is better than then other, and have there be no exceptions. For example, everything else being equal, 16mm prints will be sharper than Super-8. The problem is everything is rarely equal and my sharper Super-8 prints are sharper than my softer 16s.

-so I didn't mean to imply that a digitally sourced print doesn't look as good on screen as a photographically sourced one. I have seen digitally sourced 16mm features on a screen much larger than any typical film collector could ever have at home and they were stunning. The one I found out was digital after the fact was a complete surprise, as a matter of fact. I can say the same for some 8mm digitally sourced prints on the same screen, too.

Along the lines of everything else being equal, it's important to remember that a digitally sourced print arrives brand new and color-correct: automatically they have this advantage over traditional prints that on average (-no generalizations) are a couple of decades old, at least a little faded and are no stranger to the claw and the gate. This is why the most pristine vintage prints are like gold.

-as far as faded (-and scratched, and splicy) prints, the more I like the movie, the easier it is to ignore the blemishes. (Don't be a bad print of a bad film or you might wind up propping a table leg level!) Maybe the faded print is even kind of a placeholder until something better shows up!

Then again, there is no greater waste of potential than a really outstanding print of a downright awful movie!