Currently looking at old issues of Films and Filming from the 60s and 70s. One thing that seems to be mentioned in quite a few reviews is the colour quality or lack of it. Most of the studios are mentioned regarding the poor colour, pale and washed out in some. I'm wondering if it would be the original colour process like DeLuxe which I have heard was not perfect to start with or the labs? Now if the process was not good to start with the poor labs would have a very difficult time getting good prints.

I believe they called it Deluxe or Metrocolour because the print processing was inferior colour. Cheaper than Technicolor release prints available at the time. Films when they were re-released could have better quality colour than when they originally came out. The 1987 re issue of Hitchcock's 'Rear Window' the colour printing was better than the 1954 original. Some USA labs used polythene bags rather than greaseproof paper and their bagged stuff is now vinegar. Also in dry countries, where water is expensive, photo labs may have skimped on an adequate final washing and rinsing stage. Cause of fade and deterioration after time.

From 1950 Eastman Color also masqueraded as DeLuxe Color, Metrocolor, Pathecolor and Warnercolor.
Same product, different names !

I have a question about this thread. I have several 16mm prints made from 35mm prints one of which was a Metrocolor original printed to Eastman in the 70's for library use. The title cards weren't changed from the 35mm release to show what the later prints were made on so my question is either than looking at the stock 16mm codes how does one determain what the final print is made on and does it match the original release? I also have Technicolor original releses reprinted on SP and Eastman with no indication either than looking at the stock numbers.

I have a question about this thread. I have several 16mm prints made from 35mm prints one of which was a Metrocolor original printed to Eastman in the 70's for library use. The title cards weren't changed from the 35mm release to show what the later prints were made on so my question is either than looking at the stock 16mm codes how does one determain what the final print is made on and does it match the original release? I also have Technicolor original releses reprinted on SP and Eastman with no indication either than looking at the stock numbers.

Erik
I am not too sure of your question.
However, a 16mm release print will usually have stock details printed along the perforations. In the case of Kodak or Eastman stock, there will also be a date code.

True Maurice Leakey. Sorry about the confusion. When reduction prints are made my question was the release stock. I have several prnts made on cheap Eastman that were originally made for theates in either IB-Tech or SP but have faded do to Eastman early print stock. Was wondering how many prints surviving still have the same color process as the original theater releases.

One of the best films in my collection is Bullitt, reviewed on here, this 16mm film is the only IB technicolour film i own and colour wise, it is by far one of my best prints for colour. Technicolour will never fade,(at least in my lifetime), and is such a good proven process.
I often see some sellers describe the odd super 8 film film as technicolour but this colour process was never used on super 8.

I have a number of 16mm features that were originally shot on Technicolor and Cinecolor and are on the same stocks. This is possibly because these two colour processes were only handled by their own laboratories.

Sorry to get back to this thread so late but working a lot right now. I have an Eastman print of The Time Machine on cheaper Eastman which still shows the title cards of being a Metroclor print that looks beautiful but also have a print of The Quiet Man on cheap Eastman which has the title card of being a Tech print and is red as can be. The point I was trying to make was that home and rental prints weren't printed on the same stock as the original theater prints for the most parts.