Color photography moved from rare and expensive to ordinary between the 1930s and 1970s

Color film existed in the 1920s, but it was slow, unpredictable, and cost several times what black-and-white film cost. Most photographers and newspapers stuck with black-and-white because it was reliable and cheap. The real shift happened in stages: Kodachrome made color practical in 1935, Ektachrome made it faster in 1946, and color negative film in the 1950s finally made color prints as straightforward as black-and-white ones. By the 1970s, color film outsold black-and-white for the first time, and it has been the standard ever since.

The timeline matters because it explains why family photos from different decades look the way they do. Your grandparents' wedding album from 1940 is probably black-and-white not because color didn't exist, but because color film cost money and took skill. By 1965, a casual photographer could buy color film at any drugstore and get prints back in a week. That shift—from specialty to routine—is what "color photography became common" really means.

Key Takeaways

  • Kodachrome film, introduced in 1935, was the first color film reliable enough for everyday use, but it was expensive and required special processing.
  • Ektachrome (1946) and Kodacolor (1942) made color faster and cheaper, but most amateur photographers still used black-and-white through the 1950s because it cost less.
  • Color negative film in the 1950s was the turning point because it produced prints the same way black-and-white did, removing the barrier to adoption.
  • By the mid-1960s, color film was available at every drugstore and cost only slightly more than black-and-white, making it the default choice for casual photographers.
  • Color film outsold black-and-white for the first time around 1972, marking the end of black-and-white as the standard.

Kodachrome: The First Practical Color Film (1935)

Kodachrome was the breakthrough that made color photography real. Eastman Kodak released it in 1935, and it was the first color film that could be used in ordinary cameras without special equipment. It produced vivid, stable color slides that didn't fade quickly the way earlier color processes did.

The catch was cost and inconvenience. A roll of Kodachrome cost roughly three times what black-and-white film cost. You had to mail the film to Kodak's processing lab—there was no way to develop it at home—and you got back color slides (transparencies), not prints. If you wanted prints, you had to pay extra to have the slides copied. For professional photographers and wealthy amateurs, Kodachrome was worth it. For everyone else, it was a luxury.

Kodachrome's color was so good that it became the standard for professional color photography for decades. National Geographic photographers used it. So did fashion and advertising photographers. But the general public kept using black-and-white film because it was fast, cheap, and you could get prints in a day at any local photo shop.

Kodacolor and Ektachrome: Making Color Cheaper (1942–1950s)

Kodak introduced Kodacolor negative film in 1942, which was a different approach. Instead of producing slides, it made negatives that could be printed onto paper, just like black-and-white. That meant you could get color prints without mailing film away. But Kodacolor was slow (ISO 25), which meant you needed bright light or a tripod, and the color wasn't as vivid as Kodachrome.

Ektachrome, released in 1946, was faster than Kodachrome and could be processed by local labs instead of mailed to Kodak. It still produced slides, not prints, but it was cheaper and more convenient. By the early 1950s, Ektachrome was the standard for professional color slide photography.

For amateur photographers, the real problem was still that color film cost more and required more light. A family taking snapshots on a cloudy day would get blurry pictures with color film but sharp ones with fast black-and-white film. Most people chose black-and-white.

Color Negative Film Gets Faster and Cheaper (1950s–1960s)

The turning point came when color negative film got faster and cheaper. Kodak improved Kodacolor through the 1950s, and by the late 1950s it was fast enough (ISO 80–100) to use in ordinary daylight without a tripod. More importantly, the price gap between color and black-and-white film shrank. By 1960, color film cost maybe 50 percent more than black-and-white, not 300 percent more.

At the same time, color printing became routine. By the mid-1960s, any drugstore photo counter could print color negatives. The process was standardized and didn't require a specialist. A customer could drop off a roll of color film on Monday and pick up prints on Friday, just like with black-and-white.

This is the moment when color photography stopped being a choice and became the default. A casual photographer in 1965 had no reason to buy black-and-white film anymore. Color cost a little more but produced better-looking pictures, and the prints came back just as fast.

The Shift to Color as Standard (1960s–1970s)

Through the 1960s, color film sales climbed steadily. Kodak and Fujifilm both released faster color films. Cameras were designed with color in mind. By 1970, color film was the obvious choice for anyone taking pictures for personal use.

The final marker came around 1972, when color film sales exceeded black-and-white film sales for the first time in the United States. That's the year you can point to and say color became common—not because color photography was invented, but because it became cheaper and easier than the alternative.

Newspapers and professional black-and-white photographers kept using black-and-white film for years after that, because it was still cheaper in bulk and because black-and-white had a look they wanted. But for family photos, vacation pictures, and everyday snapshots, color was now the standard.

Why Black-and-White Held On So Long

It's straightforward to assume that better technology always wins when ready, but color photography shows that's not true. Black-and-white film had real advantages: it was cheaper, faster, and worked in low light. A photographer in 1950 could buy black-and-white film, shoot in shade or indoors, and get sharp pictures. The same photographer with color film would get blurry or underexposed pictures.

Black-and-white also had a look that people associated with seriousness and professionalism. Newspapers used black-and-white. Portraits were black-and-white. Color was for vacation slides and advertising. That cultural association lasted even after color became technically superior.

Cost mattered too. A family with a modest budget could buy black-and-white film and get prints for a few dollars. Color film and prints cost noticeably more. That gap closed slowly, and only when it did did color become truly common.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did color photography take so long to become common if it was invented in the 1920s?

Early color processes were slow, expensive, and unreliable. They faded quickly or produced muddy colors. Black-and-white film was fast, cheap, and produced sharp pictures in any light. Color didn't become practical until Kodachrome in 1935, and it didn't become affordable until the 1950s and 1960s, when faster color negative film and local color printing made it competitive with black-and-white.

Could you get color prints in the 1940s?

Yes, but it was difficult and expensive. Kodacolor negative film existed, but it was slow and the prints were expensive. Most people got color slides instead and viewed them on a light box or projected them. Color prints were a luxury until the 1960s, when color negative film got faster and printing became routine at drugstores.

When did color film become cheaper than black-and-white?

Color film never became cheaper than black-and-white film itself. But by the 1960s, the price difference shrank enough that color became the better value—you paid a little more for film but got better-looking pictures. Once color printing became standard and fast, the total cost of taking color pictures was competitive with black-and-white.

Did professional photographers switch to color before amateurs did?

Yes. Fashion, advertising, and magazine photographers adopted color in the 1940s and 1950s because they could afford it and their clients wanted color. Newspapers and portrait studios stayed with black-and-white longer because it was cheaper and had a professional look. Casual photographers were the last to switch, but once color film got fast and cheap enough, they switched fastest of all.

Is black-and-white film still available today?

Yes, but in much smaller quantities. Black-and-white film is still made by Kodak, Fujifilm, and smaller manufacturers, and it's popular with serious photographers who like the look and the control it offers. But it's a specialty product now, not the standard. Color film dominates consumer photography, and digital cameras have largely replaced both.