Color photography became widely used by the 1970s, but the real turning point came in the 1960s

Color film existed since the 1930s, but it was expensive, required special handling, and most photographers and publications stuck with black and white. The shift happened gradually across three decades. By the early 1960s, color film was cheaper and more reliable. By the mid-1960s, magazines began printing color photographs regularly. By the 1970s, color was the standard for consumer cameras and most professional work. The transition was not sudden — it was driven by falling costs, better film chemistry, and the straightforward fact that color printing became economical enough for newspapers and magazines to use it.

The delay between invention and widespread adoption reveals how technology alone does not drive change. Kodachrome worked beautifully in 1935, but the infrastructure to use it — processing labs, color printing presses, affordable film stock — did not exist at scale until the 1960s. Television's shift to color broadcasting in the late 1960s accelerated the final transition by making readers expect color in all their media.

Key Takeaways

  • Kodachrome color film launched in 1935 but remained too expensive for everyday use until the 1950s, costing roughly three times what black and white film cost.
  • The 1960s saw the real acceleration, when color film prices dropped and magazines like Life and National Geographic began printing color photographs regularly.
  • Television's shift to color broadcasting in the late 1960s pushed magazines and newspapers to follow, since readers expected color in their media.
  • By 1975, color film outsold black and white film for the first time, marking the point where color became the default choice for most photographers.

Kodachrome and the first color films, 1935 to 1950

Kodachrome arrived in 1935 as the first practical color film for still cameras. It produced vivid, stable colors and became the choice for serious color work — National Geographic used it heavily from the start. But Kodachrome required special processing that only Kodak could do, and the film itself cost roughly three times what black and white film cost. A roll of Kodachrome in 1940 cost about $1.50, while black and white cost around 50 cents. That gap mattered to photographers paying out of pocket.

Ektachrome, introduced by Kodak in 1946, offered an alternative that photographers could process themselves, but it was still expensive and required careful handling. Most professional photographers used color only when a client specifically paid for it. Newspapers and magazines printed almost no color photographs because the printing process was slow and costly. Black and white remained the standard because it was fast, cheap, and reliable. The infrastructure straightforward did not exist to handle color at scale.

The 1950s: color film becomes more affordable

Through the 1950s, color film prices fell steadily as Kodak and Fujifilm expanded production. Kodacolor, introduced in 1942 but refined in the 1950s, offered a negative film that could be printed on paper — a major advantage over slide films like Kodachrome, which required projection or expensive printing. By 1955, color film cost roughly twice what black and white cost instead of three times. That gap still mattered, but it was narrowing.

Consumer cameras began to include color film as an option. Magazines like Life and National Geographic printed more color photographs, though black and white still dominated. The shift was visible but slow. Most daily newspapers printed no color at all — the printing presses were not equipped for it, and the cost per page was prohibitive. Color remained a luxury choice rather than a standard one.

The 1960s: color becomes competitive with black and white

By 1960, color film prices had fallen enough that amateur photographers could afford it regularly. Fujifilm's Fujichrome, introduced in 1963, offered serious competition to Kodak and pushed prices down further. More importantly, color film quality improved — colors were more accurate, film speed increased, and processing became faster and more standardized. The technical barriers that had made color difficult to use were disappearing.

Magazine publishing changed dramatically in the mid-1960s. Life magazine, which had pioneered color photography in the 1940s, began printing color on nearly every page by 1965. National Geographic shifted almost entirely to color. Advertising agencies, which had always used color to sell products, pushed magazines to print color advertisements alongside color editorial photographs. The economics flipped: printing in color became cheaper per page than maintaining separate black and white and color printing processes.

Television's shift to color broadcasting accelerated the change. When NBC, CBS, and ABC began broadcasting in color in the late 1960s, readers expected to see color in their magazines and newspapers too. A photograph that looked dull in black and white could look vivid in color, and editors knew readers preferred it. The medium that reached millions of homes every day had reset expectations about what normal photography should look like.

The 1970s: color becomes the default

By 1970, color film and black and white film cost roughly the same. Processing costs were similar. Most new cameras sold were color-capable. Newspapers began printing color photographs, first in Sunday editions and then in daily editions. By 1975, color film outsold black and white film for the first time in the United States. The crossover point had arrived.

Professional photographers who had resisted color — arguing that black and white was more "artistic" or "timeless" — found that clients expected color. Magazine assignments came with the assumption that color was the default. Advertising photography was almost entirely color. Even fine art photography, which had been a black and white stronghold, began to shift, though more slowly. The market had spoken, and the market wanted color.

Why the shift took so long: cost and infrastructure

The delay between the invention of color film and its widespread use was not about technology — Kodachrome worked well in 1935. It was about money. Color film cost more to make. Processing required specialized equipment and training. Printing color photographs in newspapers and magazines required new presses or significant upgrades to existing ones. A newspaper that wanted to print color had to invest in new equipment, train staff, and change workflows. That investment made sense only if enough readers wanted color to justify the cost.

Television changed the equation. Once readers saw color on television every day, black and white photographs looked old-fashioned. Magazines that printed in color outsold magazines that did not. Newspapers that added color sections gained readers. The infrastructure investment became necessary to stay competitive, not optional. What had been a luxury became a requirement for survival in the publishing business.

Regional and professional differences in adoption

Color photography did not spread evenly across all markets and regions. National magazines adopted color before regional ones. Advertising and fashion photography went color before news photography. Fine art photography held out longest — many art photographers continued shooting black and white through the 1980s and beyond, viewing it as more serious or more permanent than color.

In some countries, the shift happened later. European newspapers, particularly in Britain and Germany, continued printing mostly black and white through the 1970s because color printing was more expensive there. By the 1980s, though, the global standard had shifted to color everywhere. What started as an American trend became a worldwide standard.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was color photography available before the 1960s?

Yes. Kodachrome launched in 1935 and produced excellent color photographs. But it was expensive — roughly three times the cost of black and white film — and required special processing only Kodak could do. Most photographers could not afford to use it regularly, and most publications could not afford to print it.

Why did newspapers take so long to print color?

Printing color photographs required new printing presses or major upgrades to existing ones. A newspaper had to invest thousands of dollars in equipment before it could print even one color photograph. That investment made sense only when enough readers wanted color to justify the cost. Television made the investment necessary by making readers expect color.

Did professional photographers resist color?

Many did, at least initially. Some argued that black and white was more artistic or timeless. Others had spent decades perfecting black and white technique and did not want to learn color. But by the 1970s, clients expected color, and photographers who refused to shoot it found fewer assignments. The market shift forced the change.

Is black and white photography still used today?

Yes, but as a deliberate choice rather than the default. Fine art photographers, documentary photographers, and some photojournalists still shoot black and white. But for most purposes — news, advertising, social media, family photographs — color is standard.

What made color film cheaper in the 1960s?

Increased production volume, competition from Fujifilm, and improvements in film chemistry all played a role. As more people bought color film, manufacturers could spread costs across more units. Better film formulas meant less waste in processing. Faster processing meant lower labor costs. All of these factors combined to narrow the price gap between color and black and white.