Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > An old Kodachrome pic is making people go gaga online

Reply
Thread Tools

An old Kodachrome pic is making people go gaga online

 
 
Bandicoot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2006
"Rob Novak" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:10 -0700, "Hebee Jeebes" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >Why would someone go gaga over that image. It isn't even in focus!

>
> It's in pretty good focus, but there's some motion blur.
>
> As far as the interest - I think it's more along the lines of nifty
> photographic forensics. Identifying as nearly as possible the place
> and time the photo was taken, kind of thing.



As far as place goes, anyone who knows London at all should have known it as
Piccadilly Circus immediately. An accurate date is a little harder, but
there's lots of clues, from vehicles to advertising signage. So the
"forensics" are fun to do, but not, in this case, all that difficult. Then
again, maybe the fact that it's a challenge, but not an overly hard one, is
why people like it.

The vast amount of tobacco advertising is one of the biggest things to
contrast with today of course - that and the vast 'Brylcreem' logo going out
of frame to the right!



Peter


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-15-2006
Hebee Jeebes wrote:
> Every thing brakes (sic) down over time

True. But then why did you say:

> Negatives and photographic prints don't
> have this problem. I doubt they ever will.

Of course they do. Certainly the better materials last a very long
time - I have family Kodachromes from the 50's that look wonderful, but
some of the Agfa and other branded stuff is dreadfully faded and I've
got prints and negatives from as recently as the 70's that are almost
useless - not because of poor storage, just age.

For the average punter, photographic materials are probably a far
better bet than cd's and hard drives for archival purposes, but with a
bit of care (two copies, and transfer to new media as required) digital
images can remain in exactly their original condition for as long as
the owner wishes. That is something photographic materials can't do.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Hebee Jeebes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-15-2006
I know what you mean about prints from the 70's. I have like 20 photo albums
full of square prints, with god awful texturing (they really should have
killed the person that came up with that one) and they are color shifted and
faded. I just invested in a new scanner to help restore these. So far so
good. It is slow going, but I am getting there.

R


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Hebee Jeebes wrote:
>> Every thing brakes (sic) down over time

> True. But then why did you say:
>
>> Negatives and photographic prints don't
>> have this problem. I doubt they ever will.

> Of course they do. Certainly the better materials last a very long
> time - I have family Kodachromes from the 50's that look wonderful, but
> some of the Agfa and other branded stuff is dreadfully faded and I've
> got prints and negatives from as recently as the 70's that are almost
> useless - not because of poor storage, just age.
>
> For the average punter, photographic materials are probably a far
> better bet than cd's and hard drives for archival purposes, but with a
> bit of care (two copies, and transfer to new media as required) digital
> images can remain in exactly their original condition for as long as
> the owner wishes. That is something photographic materials can't do.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Studio271
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-15-2006
I mean, the issue I was intending to bring up wasn't even really so
much associated with photography, as much as it was with the subjects
of photography.

<rant>

You look at the modern image of the two, and all you see are the names
of corporations which haven't even been around for more than 100 years
(and I don't see them lasting much longer either); you don't see
personalized messages, intriguing details, unusual people, etc.. You
see crap, basically.. Formulated, digested, and completely defecated
crap, most of which came from the minds of a bunch of overpaid
marketing buffoons.

Whatever happened to people doing things for the sake of their own
personal memories? There's just no individualism in the world today,
and it's a sad thing, especially when photographers aren't paying any
attention to what little is still around.

In a few centuries, assuming a human society still exists (doubt it),
will we have the ability to look back at this time and have a good
interpretation of what it was like to live then?

Hell, do what photographs we have of a century ago TODAY do that time
period any justice, in the same vein?

I'm just another pessimistic complainer who isn't willing to find a way
to change the status quo, though.

</rant>

Bandicoot wrote:
> "Dave E" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:44dfe67e$0$17546$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Studio271" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed) s.com...
> > >I don't see the big deal... :/
> > >
> > > But, if you look at the "modern" photo taken from the same position,
> > > there's a lot less detail available to identifiy the time period it was
> > > taken in (if it were printed and locked up somewhere, I mean; the
> > > metadata of the file would provide enough information for a proper
> > > identification). Makes you realize how little we all look to the
> > > future, as a society, compared to the past generations, no?
> > >

> >
> > I had a conversation recently in the same vein, regarding the historic
> > documenting implications of the 'digital age'. My friend's concern is

> that
> > the archival of our times will happen less and less, as we have more and
> > more a disposable mentality. Yes, we are taking more pictures with our
> > 'megapixel' gear, but less is being printed and the same with the written
> > word - being stored in email folders rather than on paper.

>
> If you enjoy reading science fiction, Alistair Reynolds' book "Century Rain"
> includes a very interesting slant on just this idea, with humanity split
> into groups that are sad about what has been lost and are trying hard to
> preserve what remains, and those that feel that since the past can so easily
> be forgotten they might as well live for the moment and not even try to keep
> anything. That's not the main thrust of the story, but is an important part
> of the context - it's a very good read.
>
> [SNIP]
> >
> > Yesterday dad told me that he was one of a number of presenters
> > recently who displayed images from a trip through the centre of
> > Australia. Everyone else used Powerpoint to display their (often
> > oversaturated) digital images and dad used his old Leica projector and
> > slides. The response from the audience was spectacular in its
> > amazement for the slide experience - there was a real
> > sense of being there. You could feel yourself in the shot, while the
> > digital images were by comparison, flat and perhaps far less engaging.

>
> I find that I increasingly get this reaction when I show slides, even with
> audiences old enough (and a lot older than me, often) that slides are hardly
> a new experience for them. Wish I could afford a projector that would do
> Medium Format...
>
>
>
> Peter


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nicholas O. Lindan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-15-2006
"Studio271" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

> You look at the modern image of the two, and all you see are the names
> of corporations ... Formulated, digested, and completely defecated
> crap, most of which came from the minds of a bunch of overpaid
> marketing buffoons.
>
> Whatever happened to people doing things for the sake of their own
> personal memories?


Yes, but ... take away all manufactured product and what is left?
Naked folks sitting in a field are going to look the same today as they
did 35,000 years ago.

It is the _things_ in the picture that define the lifestyle.


 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-15-2006
Bandicoot wrote:
>
> If you enjoy reading science fiction, Alistair Reynolds' book "Century Rain"
> includes a very interesting slant on just this idea...


In Non-Fiction, there's Clifford Stohl's "Silicone Snake Oil - Second
Thoughts on the Information Superhighway". Its dated, but he expresses
his concerns regarding the archiving of digital data, in a narrative
outgrowth of how he was unable to retrieve some NASA data that they had
saved in IIRC 7 different digital formats before shutting down the
program, but he was able to extract astronomy records on the same star
from written Chinese Ming Dynasty records.


> > Yesterday dad told me that he was one of a number of presenters
> > recently who displayed images from a trip through the centre of
> > Australia. Everyone else used Powerpoint...


Here's the URL to a paper I presented several years ago. It is a
Macintosh PowerPoint v.2 file, and you'll find that the current
versions of MS-Powerpoint refuse to recognize it:

<http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA.snipertrainer>

This serves as my illustration of how merely being successful in
retaining the digital bits isn't enough. The implications are that
*every* software and hardware upgrade will require going back through
your database to make sure everything is 100% forward-compatible before
you get rid of the older application/hardware. It isn't all that hard
to do this - - it is merely time consuming, and time is money.


-hh

 
Reply With Quote
 
no_name
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-15-2006
Cynicor wrote:

> Rob Novak wrote:
>
>> Buried in a carton somewhere in my back closet, I've got a stack of 8"
>> Bernoulli cartridges with a database on them.

>
>
> I was thinking of rounding up all my old 5.25" disks, locating a reader,
> and moving all the files to a single USB key fob.


That may be a problem, even if you can find a drive.

The magnetic media in diskettes is like old video tape. It DOES
deteriorate over time, especially if not used.

I've had a lot of trouble with reading old DOS DATA files from diskette,
even from 3.5" disks. It appears to be partly XP doesn't like to
cooperate & partly the disks just go bad after sitting for so long.
 
Reply With Quote
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-15-2006

"no_name" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dDpEg.34830$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Cynicor wrote:
>
>> Rob Novak wrote:
>>
>>> Buried in a carton somewhere in my back closet, I've got a stack of 8"
>>> Bernoulli cartridges with a database on them.

>>
>>
>> I was thinking of rounding up all my old 5.25" disks, locating a reader,
>> and moving all the files to a single USB key fob.

>
> That may be a problem, even if you can find a drive.
>
> The magnetic media in diskettes is like old video tape. It DOES
> deteriorate over time, especially if not used.
>
> I've had a lot of trouble with reading old DOS DATA files from diskette,
> even from 3.5" disks. It appears to be partly XP doesn't like to cooperate
> & partly the disks just go bad after sitting for so long.


Yes. With hard drives going for less than a dollar a gigabyte, why bother?


 
Reply With Quote
 
no_name
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-15-2006
Paul Heslop wrote:

> Scott W wrote:
>
>>Paul Heslop wrote:
>>
>>>Scott W wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rob Novak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:10 -0700, "Hebee Jeebes" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why would someone go gaga over that image. It isn't even in focus!
>>>>>
>>>>>It's in pretty good focus, but there's some motion blur.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Have you clicked on the image to see it full sized, way soft. Clearly
>>>>not just motion blur.
>>>>
>>>>Scott
>>>
>>>could that not be the process of putting it on the net, I mean getting
>>>it from slide/image into computer etc.

>>
>>In this case I don't believe so, note that the dust and scratches show
>>better edge detail then what we see in the photo.
>>
>>Scott
>>

>
> does it actually say what kind of cam was used etc? Could be the most
> basic thing.
>
> Reminds me of scanning some slides for my mother, pictures which
> contained some relatives who had recently died along with scenes of
> parades etc from the 70s, many of the scenes similar to the one in
> this shot were atrocious, which I am cruelly going to suggest is
> because my mother was in charge of the camera as dad would have had
> light meters etc going for every shot :O)
>
>


No, the article indicates it was probably taken some time between Sept
1949 and Aug 1950, but I saw no information on the photographer or
equipment.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Heslop
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-15-2006
no_name wrote:
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
>
> > Scott W wrote:
> >
> >>Paul Heslop wrote:
> >>
> >>>Scott W wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Rob Novak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:10 -0700, "Hebee Jeebes" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Why would someone go gaga over that image. It isn't even in focus!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's in pretty good focus, but there's some motion blur.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Have you clicked on the image to see it full sized, way soft. Clearly
> >>>>not just motion blur.
> >>>>
> >>>>Scott
> >>>
> >>>could that not be the process of putting it on the net, I mean getting
> >>>it from slide/image into computer etc.
> >>
> >>In this case I don't believe so, note that the dust and scratches show
> >>better edge detail then what we see in the photo.
> >>
> >>Scott
> >>

> >
> > does it actually say what kind of cam was used etc? Could be the most
> > basic thing.
> >
> > Reminds me of scanning some slides for my mother, pictures which
> > contained some relatives who had recently died along with scenes of
> > parades etc from the 70s, many of the scenes similar to the one in
> > this shot were atrocious, which I am cruelly going to suggest is
> > because my mother was in charge of the camera as dad would have had
> > light meters etc going for every shot :O)
> >
> >

>
> No, the article indicates it was probably taken some time between Sept
> 1949 and Aug 1950, but I saw no information on the photographer or
> equipment.


Shame. I would have trouble concentrating on anything long enough to
work out the crap, but the cars look nearer to 45 than 50... though
having said that they could be old style black cabs. I reckon the only
true guide would have been if we could see a newspaper headline :O)
--
Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Look Out Lady Gaga tony cooper Digital Photography 4 11-18-2010 01:19 PM
Re: Look Out Lady Gaga tony cooper Digital Photography 2 11-17-2010 02:15 PM
Re: Look Out Lady Gaga tony cooper Digital Photography 2 11-16-2010 08:35 PM
Gaga =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?= Computer Support 5 11-21-2007 08:53 AM



Advertisments