B&W cartoons (were they done in color)

[mikematei]

Okay, this is probably a pretty dumb question. But, I'm sitting here watching Porkys Party in black and white. My question is, were the black and white cartoons painted in color on the cels? Or were the original cels painted with black, whites and greys?

And if the cels were in fact painted with greys, do any of them exist today?

[captchucky]

The black and white Porky cells were indeed painted in black and white and gray. I've only seen one original cell, but it was done this way.

[Sogturtle]

The black and white Porky cells were indeed painted in black and white and gray. I've only seen one original cell, but it was done this way.

To be a little more precise it's a strange blue-black paint (I have some "b&w" Warner cels)... So the grays are also a strange shade. And when placed on the weird brownish (yes brownish) painted backgrounds they'd have looked really weird.:eek:

So the universal concept of them as strictly gray-tone black and white cartoons is essentially wrong. Our perception of them as black & white was created by the choice of b&w film stock, and that was because it was cheap.

[J. A. Boschen]

Here is an a good example of what a B&W Popeye cartoon cell looks like. (featured in Jerry Beck's little CB article "Geppi’s Entertainment Museum", from April 07),

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/books/geppis-entertainment-museum

[J Lee]

Ub Iwerks reportedly did animate some of his B&W cartoons in color, because it gave the cartoons a slightly different look when they appeared on screen.

With the B&W Looney Tunes, the only that appears to have been done in color and then flimed in B&W was the Porky "That''s all, Folks!" end titles for the final (1943) season. Since McCabe, and then Tashlin, was the only one still doing B&W cartoons at the time, Warners seems to have thrown away their original painting of Porky and the ripping drum cover and simply used the color one for all the shorts (on LTGC Vol 5, you can see a slight difference in the B&W tones of the end title for "Scrap Happy Daffy" than for the other 1937-42 LTs included on the set).

[Cartman]

On the Mickey Mouse in B&W Vol 2 set, there is a gallery of background paintings that are primarily done in a sepia-toned ink wash.

[dandu]

Now on UB Iwerks cartoons, the early flip the frogs were drawn in color (the very first one-Fiddlesticks was filmed in color) after Fiddlesticks the following cartoons were filmed in b/w because of budget constraints. The same thing happened with all the Willy Whopper cartoons post Air Race/Spite Flight, they were all drawn in color, but most were captured in b/w for the same reason as earlier.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

To be a little more precise it's a strange blue-black paint (I have some "b&w" Warner cels)... So the grays are also a strange shade. And when placed on the weird brownish (yes brownish) painted backgrounds they'd have looked really weird.:eek:

So the universal concept of them as strictly gray-tone black and white cartoons is essentially wrong. Our perception of them as black & white was created by the choice of b&w film stock, and that was because it was cheap.
No, the "universal concept of them as strictly gray-tone black and white cartoons" is basically right! Those cartoons were PLANNED to be seen in black and white, that's why the cels weren't painted in FULL COLOR!! The blue-black and sepia brown tones must serve a different purpose. It's obvious that the film-makers didn't plan for the cartoons be actually be seen with those strange colors. Please put your erroneous theory to rest.

[Smilodon]

Hi I'm new here.

This is an interesting topic. Black and white filmmaking is a far different animal than color filmmaking. The choices of colors for cell painting would have been made with an eye to how they would look when photographed, different colors will produce tonal results when photographed in b&w that have little to do with our perception of them as colors. It would be interesting to know exactly why they made the choices they did when painting the cells and backgrounds.

Actually does anyone know if there are any books that talk about the process of black and white animation as opposed to color. I've read a lot about about the filming of live action motion pictures in b&w and about color animation but I haven't really seen anything about b&w animation.

[Sogturtle]

Okay, this is probably a pretty dumb question. But, I'm sitting here watching Porkys Party in black and white. My question is, were the black and white cartoons painted in color on the cels? Or were the original cels painted with black, whites and greys?

And if the cels were in fact painted with greys, do any of them exist today?

Mike~

So in short the films are monochromatic purely because of the choice of the monochromatic/black and white film stock. The cels and backgrounds would've yielded their weird funky shades of blue-blacks on sepia/browns if filmed in color. No theory to it, plain fact.:)

And the core basis for it ALL was economics... Nothing more, nothing less.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Mike~

So in short the films are monochromatic purely because of the choice of the monochromatic/black and white film stock. The cels and backgrounds would've yielded their weird funky shades of blue-blacks on sepia/browns if filmed in color. No theory to it, plain fact.:)

And the core basis for it ALL was economics... Nothing more, nothing less.
Oh, brother....yes, it is a fact the cels and backgrounds were painted in a blue-black and sepia, BUT your theory that these could have been filmed on color stock is WRONG!!!! They were planned to be shot on black and white filmstock; If they weren't, the cels would have been painted in FULL COLOR (unless you think there's nothing odd about Daffy's beak or Popeye's flesh a shade of bluegray).

Black and white film may have been chosen to save money, but that only means the director knew ahead of time and painted the cels with that in mind --see, it would have been a waste of money to paint them in (full) color if they were only going to be shot in black and white.

[Bobby Bickert]

Someone here once linked to an original cel from "Ali Baba Bound", one of the ones "signed" by Leon Schlesinger with "I used this in the production of "Looney Tunes" and "Merrie Melodies"." Porky's skin was painted in color, but Porky's uniform and "Baby Dumpling" were painted in B & W.

Also, an original Fleischer Popeye cel, I think from the Tendlar unit, is pictured on the back cover of both editions of Charles Solomon's Enchanted Drawings. Again, Popeye's skin was painted in color, but his clothes, shoes, and pipe were painted in B & W.

[Sogturtle]

Sheesh!:rolleyes:... Nobody, but nobody and especially me, EVER said that the "black and white" cels were intended to be shot in color!

What I've attempted to say is that those people who really think the artists made the cartoons in a strict monochrome palette are badly mistaken. What we had were TWO separate palettes of monochromatic shades, as mentioned already the cels were a blue-black and the backgrounds brownish/sepia/brindle tone. With the cool group of shades laid on top of the set of warm shades. They were NOT intended to be shot in color, and would've looked horrible if they had been. :rolleyes:

BUT this whole foolish argument came up because of my pointing out in the past that the radicalized purists if truly sincere in things being exactly as the artists made them, should insist on the cels and backgrounds being returned to their funky hues:p.
And I know it's also bugged a few people that I see nothing wrong with the computer colorization that some companies have done.

[MarkTheShark]

It's the same thing as George Reeves wearing a green cape (or whatever color it was) for the B/W episodes of Superman. They used whatever they used, and selected colors or monochromes that they knew would photograph well in black and white. This is the main beef purists have with colorization. If one were to really color every scene in a B/W movie the way it actually was, there frequently would be some very strange color combinations because these things were chosen to make the final product work in B&W. Stan Laurel's original fez from "Sons Of The Desert" is gray. For most of their career, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy's makeup was CLOWN WHITE. The early Hanna-Barbera cartoons (though filmed in color and intended to eventually be shown in color) had their color schemes selected so they would look good on a B/W TV...which is why we see those orange skies in "The Flintstones."

[WoodpeckerWoody]

O, forget my comment.

[Ray Pointer]

Since the presentation was black and white, the best way to judge the contrast of the art and ensure how it would photograph was to paint in black, white, and shades of gray. It made no sense to use color since certain colors photograph as the same gray level. While Iwerks had cels painted in color only to shoot in black and white, the same effect would have been possible by using the same resulting gray tones since that is what ended up on film. This was in many ways self-defeating since colors such as red and green at the same chroma level photograph as the same gray in black and white.

The use of sepia wash in the backgrounds was used by some studios more or less. Surviving art pieces from the Lantz, Mintz, Disney, and Fleischer Studios show this. Some backgrounds were painted in gray ink, or watercolor as well.
But Fleischer used sepia wash to the largest degree. The reason for this was to give relief to the characters and created that contrast which gave a separation between the characters and backgrounds. Another painting technique was gauche, which was an opaque application of paint as opposed to the transparent watercolor/ink wash technique.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

BUT this whole foolish argument came up because of my pointing out in the past that the radicalized purists if truly sincere in things being exactly as the artists made them, should insist on the cels and backgrounds being returned to their funky hues:p.
And I know it's also bugged a few people that I see nothing wrong with the computer colorization that some companies have done.
The "radicalized purists" think the cartoons should be presented as the directors intended them to seen. Most directors like John Huston and Orson Welles DID NOT want their films colorized.

The Looney Tunes directors knew their finished cartoons would be seen in black and white so they planned the artwork with that in mind. I believe Ray Pointer is right, that the slight color tint given to the artwork was so the cels would stand out in relief from the background.

Sheesh!... Nobody, but nobody and especially me, EVER said that the "black and white" cels were intended to be shot in color!
I apologize if I misunderstood what you meant.

[Ray Pointer]

I believe Ray Pointer is right, that the slight color tint given to the artwork was so the cels would stand out in relief from the background.


The application of sepia is not a tint. It is a black/brown ink that exists as its own color. A tint is the addition of a color. There is no addition to the paint or ink other than in the manufacture. However, black and white films were tinted by putting them through color dyes in development. This is tinting.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

The application of sepia is not a tint. It is a black/brown ink that exists as its own color. A tint is the addition of a color. There is no addition to the paint or ink other than in the manufacture. However, black and white films were tinted by putting them through color dyes in development. This is tinting.
Ray,
If you look at the link (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/books/geppis-entertainment-museum) to Jerry's site you can see that the background has shades of gray (look at the people in the stands) as well as brown. (The brown might not even be a sepia color.) It looks like a wash of brown was applied over gray. Therefore it is a tint.

I don't want to get into splitting hairs, but tint has a broad definition. In fact the actual definition is (taken from dictionary.com):
1. A shade of a color, especially a pale or delicate variation.
2. A gradation of a color made by adding white to it to lessen its saturation.
3. A slight coloration; a tinge.
4. A barely detectable amount or degree; a trace.

I was also using sepia broadly too. I didn't mean the ink, but the color.

1. A brown pigment obtained from the inklike secretion of various cuttlefish and used with brush or pen in drawing.
2. A drawing made with this pigment.
3. A dark brown. <--

[Ray Pointer]

Ray,
If you look at the link (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/books/geppis-entertainment-museum) to Jerry's site you can see that the background has shades of gray (look at the people in the stands) as well as brown. (The brown might not even be a sepia color.) It looks like a wash of brown was applied over gray. Therefore it is a tint.

I don't want to get into splitting hairs, but tint has a broad definition. In fact the actual definition is (taken from dictionary.com):
1. A shade of a color, especially a pale or delicate variation.
2. A gradation of a color made by adding white to it to lessen its saturation.
3. A slight coloration; a tinge.
4. A barely detectable amount or degree; a trace.

I was also using sepia broadly too. I didn't mean the ink, but the color.

1. A brown pigment obtained from the inklike secretion of various cuttlefish and used with brush or pen in drawing.
2. A drawing made with this pigment.
3. A dark brown. <--

For the sake of the discisussion I was speaking in general application of the technique as well. While the dictionary offers these definitions, these again are general and do not always apply to the subject being discussed per se. There were many approaches to background painting in this style that included mixing of white paint and the application of some paints over the sepia wash underpainting. The example you site is one such example of a mixing of wash with opaque painting that I have already described.
The grays are painted over some of the ink wash areas. The sepia wash areas are a transparent watercolor wash technique. This is not a "tinting" or "toning" process, but a painting process.

For the most part, the BGs were essentially a wash technique, with the application of white or gray painted over to make highlights, and sometimes black or sepia to enhance shadows. I have seen and handled such actual artwork, which is far more accurate than viewing an Internet image. But I think the discussion here is about the general use of the technique, not a specific lesson in painting techniques, which is an area I do know something about.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Ray,

Give it up, man. When I wrote "the slight color tint given to the artwork..." I was using tint as a general term synonymous with hue, color, shade, tinge, tone, etc. Tint is a gradation referring to its degree of lightness, or a pale variation of a color. It's irrelevant if painters don't refer to their technique as "tinting", "toning", "coloring", or whatever. Tint is fine as a description for the wash of color in those background paintings, as well as the slight color on the cels. Let's quit the English lessons and get back to the discussion at hand.

[Ray Pointer]

Ray,

Give it up, man. When I wrote "the slight color tint given to the artwork..." I was using tint as a general term synonymous with hue, color, shade, tinge, tone, etc. Tint is a gradation referring to its degree of lightness, or a pale variation of a color. It's irrelevant if painters don't refer to their technique as "tinting", "toning", "coloring", or whatever. Tint is fine as a description for the wash of color in those background paintings, as well as the slight color on the cels. Let's quit the English lessons and get back to the discussion at hand.

As I said before, in answer to the original post, the cel were painted in ranges of grays in order to see how they "read" in advance to recording on black and white film. Some studios enhanced the contrast by painting the BGs with sepia ink washes with some augmentations with opaque paint for details and highlights. since the purpose of a background was to provide an environment
or setting, it was intended to receed since the attention was supposed to be on the character placed over it. By subduing the BGs this way, the characters appeared in sharp focus in a sort of relief fashion. In all, it was a clever way to ensure the separation, and it worked.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

As I said before, in answer to the original post, the cel were painted in ranges of grays in order to see how they "read" in advance to recording on black and white film. Some studios enhanced the contrast by painting the BGs with sepia ink washes with some augmentations with opaque paint for details and highlights. since the purpose of a background was to provide an environment
or setting, it was intended to receed since the attention was supposed to be on the character placed over it. By subduing the BGs this way, the characters appeared in sharp focus in a sort of relief fashion. In all, it was a clever way to ensure the separation, and it worked.
Yes, and I agreed with you when you originally wrote that.

[Gordan]

Mike~

So in short the films are monochromatic purely because of the choice of the monochromatic/black and white film stock. The cels and backgrounds would've yielded their weird funky shades of blue-blacks on sepia/browns if filmed in color. No theory to it, plain fact.:)

And the core basis for it ALL was economics... Nothing more, nothing less.

That's like saying CASABLANCA is not a black and white film, because the original Huphrey Bogart was in colour...If filmed in colour, the film certainly would not be black and white, would it now? :p :rolleyes:

[Bobby Bickert]

It's the same thing as George Reeves wearing a green cape (or whatever color it was) for the B/W episodes of Superman. They used whatever they used, and selected colors or monochromes that they knew would photograph well in black and white. This is the main beef purists have with colorization. If one were to really color every scene in a B/W movie the way it actually was, there frequently would be some very strange color combinations because these things were chosen to make the final product work in B&W. Stan Laurel's original fez from "Sons Of The Desert" is gray. For most of their career, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy's makeup was CLOWN WHITE. The early Hanna-Barbera cartoons (though filmed in color and intended to eventually be shown in color) had their color schemes selected so they would look good on a B/W TV...which is why we see those orange skies in "The Flintstones."

An article about colorization that ran in the Disney Channel magazine in 1985 to promote the colorized version of The Absent Minded Professor mentioned that actresses in B & W movies wore purple lipstick because it looked better in B & W.

And one of the most well-known bits of trivia about the original Psycho is that the "blood" that swirls down the drain in the shower scene was actually Shasta chocolate syrup. (Also, melted chocolate was used as "blood" in Roger Corman's The Wasp Woman.)

[Sogturtle]

Mike~

So in short the films are monochromatic purely because of the choice of the monochromatic/black and white film stock. The cels and backgrounds would've yielded their weird funky shades of blue-blacks on sepia/browns if filmed in color. No theory to it, plain fact.:)

And the core basis for it ALL was economics... Nothing more, nothing less.

That's like saying CASABLANCA is not a black and white film, because the original Huphrey Bogart was in colour...If filmed in colour, the film certainly would not be black and white, would it now? :p :rolleyes:

Gordan~

That's an interesting attempt at humor;)... The catch remains this, the original art was NOT black and white as ANYBODY would define black and white, no matter how you parse it or try to run away from it. The cartoon artwork was DELIBERATELY made in those funky tones, whereas Humphrey Bogart's coloring was Maude Humphrey's work:D and that was defined by the sum-total of the available DNA:) .

Nobody seems to be understanding this:eek: , the cartoon directors were under the strict ECONOMIC control of the studios. And those studios dictated BLACK and WHITE cartoons being made because it saved them substantially on the cost of color film stock and color film prints by Technicolor. It was a HUGE promotion when you got to work in color!! Chuck Jones expressed it comically with the comment that the Schlesinger backgrounds had to be given a wash of "s*&%-brindle brown":daffy: .

[Mibbitmaker]

MarkTheShark's Flintstones example is interesting*. When I was a kid watching the show religiously (during the mid-late LBJ era and the Nixon era), I sometimes saw it on a b&w set. I noticed that, in some cases (maybe due to which season, and/or which animators), Fred's tie looked lighter than his shirt, where it was darker in other cases; all this while the tie was always blue and the shirt always orange. There were times, notably late in the series when color sets were getting somewhat more available, where you could see how dark the tie was in color as well in b&w.

It would seem, in those lighter-tie shows, like H-B missed one opportunity to work the colors for the b&w as well as the color sets, unlike the orange sky example where the b&w intentions for the colors had the edge over credible color coloring.

No doubt a difficult ballancing act there.

* Of course, it's all interesting on this thread, that one was just relevant to my comment ;)

[J. J. Hunsecker]

[/color]Nobody seems to be understanding this:eek: , the cartoon directors were under the strict ECONOMIC control of the studios. And those studios dictated BLACK and WHITE cartoons being made because it saved them substantially on the cost of color film stock and color film prints by Technicolor. It was a HUGE promotion when you got to work in color!! Chuck Jones expressed it comically with the comment that the Schlesinger backgrounds had to be given a wash of "s*&%-brindle brown":daffy: .
Everyone understands that economics played into the decision by the studios to film in black and white. What you don't seem to understand is that the reason the artists chose those strange colors for the cels and backgrounds is because they knew the end results on screen would be tones of gray. They didn't add the slight color to the cels because they were pining to make color films.

Also, it is still possible to create great works of art under tight economic conditions. (All artists have to deal with budgets.) Black and white photography can look stunning; there's a reason why Welles and Huston prostested the attempts at colorizing their films, and why modern directors like Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen made black and white films, even though color film had become the standard.

I've heard the Jones quote regarding the brindle brown paint on the background before. He never mentioned that it was specifically regarding the black and white films, but rather all the films, his included. The complete quote from Barrier's interview is as follows, "I wouldn't say there was anything distictive about the backgrounds of my early pictures. We had a background department at that time, rather than a background man working with each unit. They painted everybody's backgrounds, and so all of the pictures' backgrounds tended to look alike. They were all pretty bad; their basic color was something we used to call 'diaper-brindle.'"

[MarkTheShark]

[/color][/i]



Gordan~

That's an interesting attempt at humor;)... The catch remains this, the original art was NOT black and white as ANYBODY would define black and white, no matter how you parse it or try to run away from it. The cartoon artwork was DELIBERATELY made in those funky tones, whereas Humphrey Bogart's coloring was Maude Humphrey's work:D and that was defined by the sum-total of the available DNA:) .

Nobody seems to be understanding this:eek: , the cartoon directors were under the strict ECONOMIC control of the studios. And those studios dictated BLACK and WHITE cartoons being made because it saved them substantially on the cost of color film stock and color film prints by Technicolor. It was a HUGE promotion when you got to work in color!! Chuck Jones expressed it comically with the comment that the Schlesinger backgrounds had to be given a wash of "s*&%-brindle brown":daffy: .

So the answer to the original question seems to be...yes, in some cases, with the degree varying on a case-by-case basis, some animation artwork used to make black and white cartoons did have some color elements. Regardless of WHY the cartoons were being made in black and white, the animators knew they were producing a black and white film and their choices of coloring were made with a final black and white product in mind. Except maybe for Van Beuren.

Yes? No?

[J. J. Hunsecker]

So the answer to the original question seems to be...yes, in some cases, with the degree varying on a case-by-case basis, some animation artwork used to make black and white cartoons did have some color elements. Regardless of WHY the cartoons were being made in black and white, the animators knew they were producing a black and white film and their choices of coloring were made with a final black and white product in mind. Except maybe for Van Beuren.

Yes? No?
Si.

[Sogturtle]

That's an interesting attempt at humor;)... The catch remains this, the original art was NOT black and white as ANYBODY would define black and white, no matter how you parse it or try to run away from it. The cartoon artwork was DELIBERATELY made in those funky tones, whereas Humphrey Bogart's coloring was Maude Humphrey's work:D and that was defined by the sum-total of the available DNA:) .

Nobody seems to be understanding this:eek: , the cartoon directors were under the strict ECONOMIC control of the studios. And those studios dictated BLACK and WHITE cartoons being made because it saved them substantially on the cost of color film stock and color film prints by Technicolor. It was a HUGE promotion when you got to work in color!! Chuck Jones expressed it comically with the comment that the Schlesinger backgrounds had to be given a wash of "s*&%-brindle brown":daffy: .

So the answer to the original question seems to be...yes, in some cases, with the degree varying on a case-by-case basis, some animation artwork used to make black and white cartoons did have some color elements. Regardless of WHY the cartoons were being made in black and white, the animators knew they were producing a black and white film and their choices of coloring were made with a final black and white product in mind. Except maybe for Van Beuren.

Yes? No?

MarkTheShark~

Yeah the answer to the orginal question is, yes there was color UNDERLYING the black and white cartoons in these definite KNOWN cases (possibly others as well)...

Schlesinger/Warners--absolutely yes on the Porkys, with blue-black cels & brownish backgrounds
Fleischer-------------Yep on the Betty Boops and Popeyes, same as Warners
Iwerks---------------The Willie Whoppers were done in COLOR... Most filmed in b&w
MGM-----------------Captain & Kids RELEASED in sepia, two made & released in color (am trying to resolve definitively what they were all made in).

Below are a couple examples of how "brownish"/"sepia" the Fleischer backgrounds were...
http://www.vegalleries.com/old_site/fleischer/72boop02c.jpg

http://www.vegalleries.com/old_site/fleischer/71popbkgd.jpg

I don't know about anybody else but these DON'T look black and white to me:D

And of course the original artists knew full well that the cost-conscious studios were going to film in black and white...:rolleyes: That was the prime way of pinching pennies. Once everything went to Technicolor then costs rose and the stage was set for later "economizing" as soon as 'shorts-booking' was outlawed (union wages couldn't be cut)!

The cartoon directors made those in black and white because they HAD to, NOT because they wanted to:eek: ...it was dictated by the producers and the releasing companies.

And I don't know of a single Warner or MGM cartoon-director who ever expressed a desire to go BACK to black and white once they were out of that arena.

*And there is a version of Jones' quote where the derisive term he used was "s*#%-brindle". Check back in the Merrie Melodies of the day and you won't see weird brownish backgrounds.

[Ray Pointer]

This is the very thing that I described in explicit detail aboce. Again, it is a application of sepia wash under painting with some opaque over painting. The top image appears to be a foreground cel overlay, and the bottom image a background painting. Again, the character cels would be painted in black, white, and grays to gain contrast.

It should be understood that while there is chroma in the sepia, brown is a neutral the same as gray, black and white are neutrals, which are not artistically a "color." Add to the impression of "color" is the fact that the BG painting has also yellowed slightly with age. Browns are the result of the mixing of two complimentary colors such as red and green, blue and orange, or yellow and violet in varying amounts. The addtion of all three primaries of pigment yellow, red, and blue produces black (the presence of all color). This is not to be confused with the primaries of light, which are red, green, and blue, where the presence of all color is pure white.

If the background had been painted using a primary color such as red or blue, it would be monochromatic as opposed to "monochrome," which is black and white. And as I mentioned above it would not photograph as a separate gray from the characters. Again this technique made it easier to judge how well the characters would read against the backgrounds to create the necessary separation. The use of sepia wash also simulates color blindness, which results in nuetralizing red and green to brown. So in this respect this makes sense from another perspective.

[Ray Pointer]

[/color][/i]

Gordan~


Nobody seems to be understanding this:eek: , the cartoon directors were under the strict ECONOMIC control of the studios. And those studios dictated BLACK and WHITE cartoons being made because it saved them substantially on the cost of color film stock and color film prints by Technicolor. It was a HUGE promotion when you got to work in color!! .

The black and white stock was cheaper in the sense that the cost was at least 1/3 in terms of original camera negative. First of all, it should be remembered that until 1947 there was no "color" film stock. Technicolor was a dye transfer process added to black and white film. The color was filtered onto a black and white negative using a color wheel placed in front of the lens of the animation camera. (In live action a prism was used to filter the primary colors onto three separate negatives photographed simultaneously.) In the case of cartoons, three exposures were made representing each frame, a red frame, green frame, and blue frame on a single negative film. The resulting gray range impressions responded to the dyes when processed in three steps. In both live action and cartoon production, three times the film footage was necessary. In the case of cartoons, what would normally be 700 to 1000 feet of negative would be tripled to 2100 to 3000 feet because of the three frame exposure process. Taking the camera neg, composite interpositives and internegatives would be made, creating separate panchromatic color matrices in the same fashion as in live action films from which prints would be made. Then thes negs would be used to print onto postive stock, running the prints through three color dye baths to attain color.

As you can see, the process was very time consuming and "technical," so it comes as no surprise that it was appropriately named "Technicolor." All these steps and the time necessary to achieve the results cost extra in the process adding to the associated overhead of operation. All of this was controlled by Technicolor corporation, so the studios were at the mercy of Tech labs. In the case of live action films, only Technicolor technicians were authorized to load and operate the Technicolor cameras, which the studios leased when using the Technicolor process. All this was simplified with the introduction of a single strip color negative film in 1947 from which Tech panchromatic separations could be made for making Technicolor prints. Hence the credt "Print by Technicolor."

[J. J. Hunsecker]

[/color]
I don't know about anybody else but these DON'T look black and white to me:D
Those backgrounds look GRAY to me. Specifically a WARM GRAY. Do you really see them as colored? Even calling them brown is a stretch.

I don't understand what you point is, Sogturtle. Are you saying that because the film-makers added some slight odd hues to the cels and BGs that they intended audiences to see them that way? Do you think the black and white cartoons should be "restored" to their odd brown tinge and blue/black color?

Why do you keep bringing up the fact that the studio heads chose black and white film as a cost cutting measure? That has no bearing on the reason that the directors had the cels colored a slightly different hue from the backgrounds. Or on whether the finished product is art or not.

[Sogturtle]

This is the very thing that I described in explicit detail aboce. Again, it is a application of sepia wash under painting with some opaque over painting. The top image appears to be a foreground cel overlay, and the bottom image a background painting. Again, the character cels would be painted in black, white, and grays to gain contrast.

It should be understood that while there is chroma in the sepia, brown is a neutral the same as gray, black and white are neutrals, which are not artistically a "color." Add to the impression of "color" is the fact that the BG painting has also yellowed slightly with age. Browns are the result of the mixing of two complimentary colors such as red and green, blue and orange, or yellow and violet in varying amounts. The addtion of all three primaries of pigment yellow, red, and blue produces black (the presence of all color). This is not to be confused with the primaries of light, which are red, green, and blue, where the presence of all color is pure white.

If the background had been painted using a primary color such as red or blue, it would be monochromatic as opposed to "monochrome," which is black and white. And as I mentioned above it would not photograph as a separate gray from the characters. Again this technique made it easier to judge how well the characters would read against the backgrounds to create the necessary separation. The use of sepia wash also simulates color blindness, which results in nuetralizing red and green to brown. So in this respect this makes sense from another perspective.

Ray~

You're quite correct that the top image is a Flesicher cel overlay! [Purportedly from a Betty Boop].
And though we can classify brown and its hues and shades (i.e. sepia etc.) as a neutral, brown is considered by most average people (not artists or interior decorators:p ) to be a color. The fact that in paint it is achieved by the mix of red and green (or other complimentary colors) does much to underscore that it is a color (along with its derivatives).

And I have NO doubt that some people with some degree of undiagnosed color-blindness will look at those two Fleischer images and see them as black and white.:eek: [Literally yesterday my girlfriend was wearing a very nice, intense blue-green knit top, when I commented on the color she insisted that it was actually a grass-green:p ].

[Ray Pointer]

Ray~

You're quite correct that the top image is a Flesicher cel overlay! [Purportedly from a Betty Boop].
And though we can classify brown and its hues and shades (i.e. sepia etc.) as a neutral, brown is considered by most average people (not artists or interior decorators:p ) to be a color. The fact that in paint it is achieved by the mix of red and green (or other complimentary colors) does much to underscore that it is a color (along with its derivatives).

And I have NO doubt that some people with some degree of undiagnosed color-blindness will look at those two Fleischer images and see them as black and white.:eek: [Literally yesterday my girlfriend was wearing a very nice, intense blue-green knit top, when I commented on the color she insisted that it was actually a grass-green:p ].

This an artistic discussion. Therefore the references to the differences between colors and neutrals do apply here. As for the "grass green" shade,
some grass has a blue tone to it, and other grasses have a yellow tone to them. It may depend upon the light that the color is seen in as well as the color perception of the individual.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

And I have NO doubt that some people with some degree of undiagnosed color-blindness will look at those two Fleischer images and see them as black and white.:eek:
How do you know YOU picked the right color, Soggy? Perhaps that background is taupe, or french gray? Maybe you should get your eyes checked.

It's still irrelevant what "color" (more like monochromatic hue) the background is, since they ended up as black and white anyway by the time it hit the movie screens. The choice of color was chosen with the knowledge that it would end up as tones of gray. Same thing for the characters... :bosko: :honey: :buddy: :rabbit: :betty: :felix: :flip:

[MarkTheShark]

So the answer to the original question seems to be...yes, in some cases, with the degree varying on a case-by-case basis, some animation artwork used to make black and white cartoons did have some color elements. Regardless of WHY the cartoons were being made in black and white, the animators knew they were producing a black and white film and their choices of coloring were made with a final black and white product in mind. Except maybe for Van Beuren.

Yes? No?

D'oh! I meant Ub Iwerks (Willie Whopper).

Well, maybe I can get a job working for Goodtimes!:dodo:

[Ray Pointer]

It has been noted for several years now that Iwerks had cels painted in color even though they were shot in black and white in order to achieve a certain effect. Anyone would think this would be self-defeating since the resulting gray range would have been achieved by painting in the corresponding grays. While it doesn't seem that the painting in color added to production costs, Iwerks did seem to be the only producer doing this. But then his studio did not last very long, ending up taking subcontracting work for Scheslinger and Mintz at the end.

[Sogturtle]

Okay, this is probably a pretty dumb question. But, I'm sitting here watching Porkys Party in black and white. My question is, were the black and white cartoons painted in color on the cels? Or were the original cels painted with black, whites and greys?

And if the cels were in fact painted with greys, do any of them exist today?

D'oh! I meant Ub Iwerks (Willie Whopper).

Well, maybe I can get a job working for Goodtimes!:dodo:

MarkTheShark~

It's okay not a big deal!!:cool: But hey! If you're over there applying at Goodtimes would you pick me up an application??:D [Since I know several people who'd much rather have me there than here:p ;) ].

Going back to our ORIGINAL poster's question "...were the black and white cartoons painted in color on the cels? Or were the original cels painted with blacks, whites and greys?" The precise answer remains that Schlesinger/Warners and Fleischers used a blue-black paint and the shades were similarly derivative of that blue-black paint. And that further those studios used a browninsh shade (sepia/brown/brindle) for the backgrounds. While Iwerks used a full palette of colors on his "Willie Whoppers" (this MAY have been done at MGM also).

So the final answer is that strictly speaking, YES there was color present on both the original cels and backgrounds at Schlesinger's and several other studios.

As far as anybody arguing about what the two Fleischer backgrounds/overlays are to the eye I DID ask someone else what they saw when looking at those two backgrounds and they replied "brown or sepia".
However the most objective of all is the art gallery's description of each of them (my emphasis though):) .

Betty Boop background
"A marvelous and very rare Original Production Background from a Betty Boop cartoon circa 1930, depicting a jungle scene. The detailing in this sepia watercolor and ink background overlay is wonderful . The reflection you see is from the protective bag the art is kept in. The cutout overlay measures 9"x 12.25 with pegs at the top."

Popeye background
"An Extremely Rare Original Production Background from an early Popeye cartoon circa 1934, depicting the bottom of the sea...with a swimming pool ! The quality of this sepia watercolor and ink background shows what amazing detailing went into these early classics."

And the dictionary defines sepia as a reddish-brown color, so it is a color.:cool:
All this mind you, just to answer the original poster's question ...:D

[Ray Pointer]

Appraisers of animation art do not always know the medium or production process and make erroneous claims on the pieces since they are removed from the industry and the techniques that produced the work. The cel overlay is not a watercolor application. It is clearly opaque paint applied to the top surface of the cel. This is necessary in making a BG cel overlay since the application of transparent paints and inks would not be absorbed into the cel surface as in the case of illustration board. The paint sets on the surface and the use of watercolor on a cel is trasparent and inconsistent, or puddle like in its application. The application of transparent watercolor paint was attempted to create shadow effects on cels at one time, but the puddling of the paint was the major problem.

The only way that the sort of solidity you see in the foreground palm trees is achieved is by painting with cel paint on the top surface. (Character cels were painted on the back side.) Ordinary tempora or poster paint will not adhere to the cel, and breaks off since it will not flex with the handling of the cels. On another historical note, some early experiments with making commercially produced tempora adaptable to cels included the addition of Kayro syrup to the paint. The unfortunate thing was that it attracted roaches.

The dictionary defines sepia as "any of several cuttlefishes with an internal shell. Also a dark-brown pigment prepared from the inky secretion of cuttlefish. A dark-reddish-brown color. A photographic print in this color. A dark reddish brown."

Sepia in photographic applications varies from a reddish borwn to a more dark brown yellowish tone, which is contained in the examples above. Most applications of sepia tend to be a dirty black/brown tone. From an artistic eye, the amount of red contained in the sepia used in the BG examples is nuetralized in the paints and inks used. While some amount of red is contained to define sepia, there are also amounts of green and black contained. While sepia is remotely related to red, it does not qualify as red since it is nuetralized. Sepia is a "neutral" like gray, black, or white. As such it really does not qualify as a hue in the sense that red does.

[Bobby Bickert]

MarkTheShark~

Yeah the answer to the orginal question is, yes there was color UNDERLYING the black and white cartoons in these definite KNOWN cases (possibly others as well)...

Schlesinger/Warners--absolutely yes on the Porkys, with blue-black cels & brownish backgrounds
Fleischer-------------Yep on the Betty Boops and Popeyes, same as Warners
Iwerks---------------The Willie Whoppers were done in COLOR... Most filmed in b&w
MGM-----------------Captain & Kids RELEASED in sepia, two made & released in color (am trying to resolve definitively what they were all made in).

Add Disney to the list. A cel/background setup from the original "Orphans Benefit" once appeared on the cover of Collectors Showcase magazine; the background was brownish/sepia.

[captchucky]

In any case, the cells were painted in black and white and grey paints, with the intention of them being photgraphed on black and white film. Whether or not the grays were free of other tones would not have mattered to the producers.

[Sogturtle]

Yeah the answer to the orginal question is, yes there was color UNDERLYING the black and white cartoons in these definite KNOWN cases (possibly others as well)...

Schlesinger/Warners--absolutely yes on the Porkys, with blue-black cels & brownish backgrounds
Fleischer-------------Yep on the Betty Boops and Popeyes, same as Warners
Iwerks---------------The Willie Whoppers were done in COLOR... Most filmed in b&w
MGM-----------------Captain & Kids RELEASED in sepia, two made & released in color (am trying to resolve definitively what they were all made in).

Add Disney to the list. A cel/background setup from the original "Orphans Benefit" once appeared on the cover of Collectors Showcase magazine; the background was brownish/sepia.

Bobby Bickert~

Thanks for the nugget on Disney:) . My hunch has been that the use of the funky hues for cels and backgrounds was NEARLY an industry-wide standard thus most likely including even Disney.

And it makes Iwerks use of full-color for the cels and backgrounds of "Willie Whopper" and at least some of his "Flip The Frogs" seem less unusual.:flip:

[Ray Pointer]

It's a much simpler concept than all this. When you consider the fact that reality is in color, it photographs in black and white on black and white film. When filming live action in black and white, sometimes odd color combinations were used in order to achieve certain gray range responses combined with lighting. In later years, the use of infrared filters also created an intense gray range in black and white photography. The story has it that this technique was used on WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?

But getting back to black and white cartoons, we need to be very clear in the distinction about the limited use of "color" in the backgrounds. Again, it is inaccurated to say that color was used since the sepia undertone (which is a neutral--as I continue to stress) was used as a monochromatic base intended to create a gray range separation response on film. If color were to have been employed, one could reason that the same thing would be possible by
painting entirely in blue, red, or green. But it is all in the way those colors would respond to the black and white film combined with the painted character cels. Since there was a lot of black used on characters, blue and red tended to photograph as a dark gray or black. Therefore, these colors would not produce the contrast and separtion desired.

If the BG were to have been painted in "color," there would have been other hues employed. Instead, the sepia is used as if painting in a black and white gray range. So the use of the sepia and gray is not painting in color per se, although there is a color base to the ink. But this ink does not have full chroma saturation, and this is why it was used.

Regarding the idea of a tinted black and white film, such as a sepia toned print, this is not a color film, although a color was introduced. A color dye is introduced to the film base and black and white emusion in the processing. Such tints are absorbed by the silver nitrate in the emulsion, and the gray range takes on that color, producing a monochromatic look, or one color as if looking through colored glasses. This has nothing to do with the idea behind
the sepia application to animation BGs. Once again, the use of sepia in black and white cartoon backgrounds was to create a gray range separation between characters and BGs when photographed on black and white film.
This also is what created the sense of soft focus separation, which drew attention to the characters making them seem in focus and in the foreground.

Again, let's be clear to say that BGs for black and white used a sepia paint or ink to be more accurate than saying a color or color tint. There is a great deal of difference between the two.

[shoshani]

Here's a simple question to open yet another can of worms: does anyone know for sure what TYPE of b&w stock was used for b&w cartoons?

It would seem to me that blue-sensitive, orthochromatic, and panchromatic stock would render a cool gray/warm gray combination in a slightly different manner; that the red wavelengths in a warm background might photograph as a slightly different combination of grays on orthochromatic film (which photographed red as black) than it would on panchromatic film (which was sensitized to red, and which rendered it a lighter gray).

That's one reason I question why Iwerks made color cels and backgrounds for b&w films; unless he was using panchromatic stock, the color palette stood a chance of being somewhat skewed - unless they knew the limitations and were equipped to skew their material in the opposite direction for balance, similar to palette adjustments that had to be made for Cinecolor.

[Ray Pointer]

Here's a simple question to open yet another can of worms: does anyone know for sure what TYPE of b&w stock was used for b&w cartoons?

It would seem to me that blue-sensitive, orthochromatic, and panchromatic stock would render a cool gray/warm gray combination in a slightly different manner; that the red wavelengths in a warm background might photograph as a slightly different combination of grays on orthochromatic film (which photographed red as black) than it would on panchromatic film (which was sensitized to red, and which rendered it a lighter gray).

That's one reason I question why Iwerks made color cels and backgrounds for b&w films; unless he was using panchromatic stock, the color palette stood a chance of being somewhat skewed - unless they knew the limitations and were equipped to skew their material in the opposite direction for balance, similar to palette adjustments that had to be made for Cinecolor.

Panchromatic stock was used. Previous to the development of Pan stock was Orthochromatic, which was blind to blue. Hence the name Pancromatic being sensitive to all colors. Ortho was used in special cases of trick shots where blue was to be disguised. But by the time of sound cartoons and the full gray spectrum seen, Pan film stock was used, which was the same stock used for photographing Technicolor. They knew what the limitations of the responses were to yield certain colors in both two-color and three-color processes. That is why "wedge tests" were made to determine exposure and see what color combinations reproduced for the desired effect.

The appearance of warm or cool tones in black and white motion picture films is affected by two factors, the nature of the projection lamphouse and the film processsing. Prints that appear warm take on a nearly sepia tone with age brought on by oxidation and a shortening of the amount of time spent in the developing stages that include, develop, stop bath, and fix. If the time allow for the "fix" step is shortened, the print will turn with age as if tarnishing.

Until the 1970s, 35mm theatrical projection machines (not projectors) utilized carbon arc lighting, which produced an intense light by burning through DC current, carbon rods encased in copper. This was a very bright blue-white light. Accordingly, color films would be balanced a bit more warm for arc projection. Incandescent projection as in most 16mm projectors is warmer, more towards the red end of the spectrum. producing a more yellow-white light by comparison. There were a few 16mm arc light projectors made for theaters, and in the early 1970s, an arc model using a Xenon lamp source was introduced in the Kodak Pagent.

Xenon is the replacement to carbon arc lighting and is in use in all modern projection equipment today. While some purists may argue that it does not
produce the same color balance as carbon arc, it is virtually the same with no real noticable difference. The advantage is that there is no longer the issue of an open flame and the need to load the lamphouse with carbon arc rods after an hour of running time, and none of the heat associated with burning the arc rods.

I hope this covers everything, although unrelated to the production of black and white cartoons.

[captchucky]

How do you know YOU picked the right color, Soggy? Perhaps that background is taupe, or french gray? Maybe you should get your eyes checked.

It's still irrelevant what "color" (more like monochromatic hue) the background is, since they ended up as black and white anyway by the time it hit the movie screens. The choice of color was chosen with the knowledge that it would end up as tones of gray. Same thing for the characters... :bosko: :honey: :buddy: :rabbit: :betty: :felix: :flip:

I'm also wondering about the age and storage of the artwork changing to yellow/brown/sepia over a 70 year time-span.

I think it may be possible that they used different color tints of gray to make it easier for the people painting the cells to pick the right gray tone while painting different areas of the cels.

[Ray Pointer]

I'm also wondering about the age and storage of the artwork changing to yellow/brown/sepia over a 70 year time-span.

I think it may be possible that they used different color tints of gray to make it easier for the people painting the cells to pick the right gray tone while painting different areas of the cels.

Monochromatic is the use of varying intensities or values of one color to porduce an affect as if looking through colored glasses, as I've explained. Monochrome is black and white, and is largely a video term. You cannot have "color tints of gray." You can have tints or gradations of a hue or a gray. But gray is not artistlally a color (hue) since it is considered a nuetral. Such graduations are called "values." The saturation of a hue is "chroma." As for the ease in picking the grays for the cels, this has already been covered in reference to the use of sepia in the BGs.

[captchucky]

Monochromatic is the use of varying intensities or values of one color to porduce an affect as if looking through colored glasses, as I've explained. Monochrome is black and white, and is largely a video term. You cannot have "color tints of gray." You can have tints or gradations of a hue or a gray. But gray is not artistlally a color (hue) since it is considered a nuetral. Such graduations are called "values." The saturation of a hue is "chroma." As for the ease in picking the grays for the cels, this has already been covered in reference to the use of sepia in the BGs.

What I'm questioning here is the early producers need for pure gray paints. Could they have added red pigment to them to create a darker gray when photographed? Was the paint of any special pure-gray quality? Why would it have to be?
They wouldn't actually care what the colors looked like on the cels as long as they photographed properly. I also question the idea of richer grays being created on black and white film. Black and white film simply wouldn't show these richer grays as anything but plain old gray.

[shoshani]

I also question the idea of richer grays being created on black and white film. Black and white film simply wouldn't show these richer grays as anything but plain old gray.

So you're basically saying, then, that when it comes to gray on film it's either black or white - there are no gray areas? :D

(I need to go get another cup of Stan Freberg...)

[Ray Pointer]

What I'm questioning here is the early producers need for pure gray paints. Could they have added red pigment to them to create a darker gray when photographed? Was the paint of any special pure-gray quality? Why would it have to be?
They wouldn't actually care what the colors looked like on the cels as long as they photographed properly. I also question the idea of richer grays being created on black and white film. Black and white film simply wouldn't show these richer grays as anything but plain old gray.

The whole thing is a lot simplier that all this. By painting cels in the black and white gray scale, what you saw was what you got on film. This was the case in the production of early television commercials before the arrival of color.
The entire scene was designed in a gray range, characters and backgrounds.
The reason for this was that the sepia tone used in theatricals was too subtle to photograph for television transmission. So the stylists and designers worked in a complete gray scale palette.

Basically there are about 30 ranges of gray tones that register on film. These are gradations ranging from white to black. The impression of "richness" was o affected by film stock, exposure, processing, printing, and the light of the projection machine, again already explained in detail. In the days of theatrical animation, there was not that much of an artistic concern, or complicated analysis. The producers just wanted to have something on the screen that worked, and they used a method that was proven to produce the desired effect that was reliable and cost effective since there was no such thing as redoing scenes because "experiments" that failed.

[shoshani]

That's one reason I question why Iwerks made color cels and backgrounds for b&w films; unless he was using panchromatic stock, the color palette stood a chance of being somewhat skewed - unless they knew the limitations and were equipped to skew their material in the opposite direction for balance, similar to palette adjustments that had to be made for Cinecolor.

I just found an illustration to show exactly what I'm trying to describe - it's a February, 1930 ad in which Eastman Kodak was showing the general public the difference between Orthochromatic and Panchromatic film.

http://photo.net/learn/optics/edscott/pss00030.htm

The side-by-side pictures and illustration of the limited sensitivity of Ortho vs Pan will show what I am trying to describe, regarding what the different films would "see" when presented with cels painted in color.

[Chow Hound]

I just found an illustration to show exactly what I'm trying to describe - it's a February, 1930 ad in which Eastman Kodak was showing the general public the difference between Orthochromatic and Panchromatic film.

http://photo.net/learn/optics/edscott/pss00030.htm

The side-by-side pictures and illustration of the limited sensitivity of Ortho vs Pan will show what I am trying to describe, regarding what the different films would "see" when presented with cels painted in color.Wow, that IS a huge difference.

[captchucky]

The whole thing is a lot simplier that all this. By painting cels in the black and white gray scale, what you saw was what you got on film. This was the case in the production of early television commercials before the arrival of color.
The entire scene was designed in a gray range, characters and backgrounds.
The reason for this was that the sepia tone used in theatricals was too subtle to photograph for television transmission. So the stylists and designers worked in a complete gray scale palette.

Basically there are about 30 ranges of gray tones that register on film. These are gradations ranging from white to black. The impression of "richness" was o affected by film stock, exposure, processing, printing, and the light of the projection machine, again already explained in detail. In the days of theatrical animation, there was not that much of an artistic concern, or complicated analysis. The producers just wanted to have something on the screen that worked, and they used a method that was proven to produce the desired effect that was reliable and cost effective since there was no such thing as redoing scenes because "experiments" that failed.

Thanks for that info. Thirty different gray tones is quite a few. It makes me wonder how many were generally used on the cels in the 1930's cartoons. I assumed that the early producers of the fims left failed experiments on the released films. They seemed to be working on very tight schedules and budgets.

[Ray Pointer]

Thanks for that info. Thirty different gray tones is quite a few. It makes me wonder how many were generally used on the cels in the 1930's cartoons. I assumed that the early producers of the fims left failed experiments on the released films. They seemed to be working on very tight schedules and budgets.

You would have to take each character on an individual case. Porky Pig could have as many as four grays, the lightest being in his eyes and on his gloves. Pure white was avoided since it would glare. Daffy Duck would be black with two grays.

Betty Boop was largely Black with two grays for her eyes and skin tone. In the later shorts, more gray tones were added to her "costumes." Generaly no more than five grays in all it seems.

Popeye would be three grays and black, Olive four grays and black,
Bluto four grays and black. When Popeye was place in the Navy whites, he was reduced to three grays, or the lightest gray for the uniform, a light gray for skin tone, and a darker gray for his shoes. Addition grays would be used on details such as his tongue and gums. (Remember, he had no teeth until the 1950s!)

Incidentally, the early form of NTSC television could reproduce only seven grays. and not the 30 grays possible on film. Today's televisions, and the new HD sets can reproduce virtually the full spectrum and gray range more faithfully.