An old Kodachrome pic is making people go gaga online

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by casioculture@gmail.com, Aug 14, 2006.

  1. Guest

    , Aug 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Studio271 Guest

    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?

    -Drew

    wrote:
    > This picture is currently topping the social bookmarking sites
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:London_,_Kodachrome_by_Chalmers_Butterfield.jpg
     
    Studio271, Aug 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Scott W Guest

    Scott W, Aug 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Dave E Guest

    "Studio271" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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.

    For me, I'm finding great joy returning to film and suddenly I have the need
    to document my rolls of developed trannies where I have become lazy with
    Exif. :)

    When I visit the parents, we love to look at old movies and photos from the
    60s and 70s. Dad shot Kodachrome back then and on his slide projector, the
    colours are truly stunning and look like they were taken yesterday. Dad is
    perhaps at the higher end of the spectrum in terms of good storage practice
    but our history is secure in that collection of pics - and I hope to achieve
    similar with my images.

    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. It
    helps that the old fella is an excellent photographer of course! (I'm not
    biased at all...) ;-)

    Not sure where I'm headed with this so I'll wrap it up there. :)

    Cheers,
    Dave E (Sydney, Aust)
    ....feeling a touch sentimental...
    PS. I'd be interested in a pointer to any decent slide strip archival
    system/equipment.
     
    Dave E, Aug 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Hebee Jeebes, Aug 14, 2006
    #5
  6. Hebee Jeebes Guest

    I think the biggest problem for archiving digital memories is that we really
    don't have any way to do it. CDs and DVDs aren't reliable at least not 100
    years worth. At least with film the film deteriorated but most of it still
    survives and can be recovered the same with real photographic prints. Our
    digital memories I don't think are going to be that lucky not even prints
    made from the "archival" printers which I don't believe are anything of the
    like.

    My feeling is in 30 years we are going to hit a historical dark ages when we
    all suddenly realize that our digital files are lost and gone forever. We
    really need a sure fire way to save these files so that in 30 to 100 years
    we will still have them. That to me is the biggest problem with digital
    technology.

    R


    "Dave E" <> wrote in message
    news:44dfe67e$0$17546$...
    > "Studio271" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>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.
    >
    > For me, I'm finding great joy returning to film and suddenly I have the
    > need to document my rolls of developed trannies where I have become lazy
    > with Exif. :)
    >
    > When I visit the parents, we love to look at old movies and photos from
    > the 60s and 70s. Dad shot Kodachrome back then and on his slide
    > projector, the colours are truly stunning and look like they were taken
    > yesterday. Dad is perhaps at the higher end of the spectrum in terms of
    > good storage practice but our history is secure in that collection of
    > pics - and I hope to achieve similar with my images.
    >
    > 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. It helps that the old fella is an
    > excellent photographer of course! (I'm not biased at all...) ;-)
    >
    > Not sure where I'm headed with this so I'll wrap it up there. :)
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Dave E (Sydney, Aust)
    > ...feeling a touch sentimental...
    > PS. I'd be interested in a pointer to any decent slide strip archival
    > system/equipment.
    >
     
    Hebee Jeebes, Aug 14, 2006
    #6
  7. Paul Heslop Guest

    Hebee Jeebes wrote:
    >
    > Why would someone go gaga over that image. It isn't even in focus!
    >
    > R


    Looks like a discussion about time etc. I enjoy looking at old
    photographs of places which haven't changed much.


    --
    Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Paul Heslop, Aug 14, 2006
    #7
  8. Bandicoot Guest

    "Dave E" <> wrote in message
    news:44dfe67e$0$17546$...
    > "Studio271" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >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
     
    Bandicoot, Aug 14, 2006
    #8
  9. no_name Guest

    Hebee Jeebes wrote:

    > Why would someone go gaga over that image. It isn't even in focus!
    >


    Looks in focus to me. The lens may not have had the sharpness of modern
    glass, but it's adequately sharp. Probably shot wide open with a fairly
    slow lens, since Kodachrome would have been ASA 10 or 12 back then.
     
    no_name, Aug 14, 2006
    #9
  10. Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Focus was probably a poor choice. Soft it is too soft. But, then depending
    on the camera one might be able to forgive.

    R


    "no_name" <> wrote in message
    news:Tl2Eg.15568$...
    > Hebee Jeebes wrote:
    >
    >> Why would someone go gaga over that image. It isn't even in focus!
    >>

    >
    > Looks in focus to me. The lens may not have had the sharpness of modern
    > glass, but it's adequately sharp. Probably shot wide open with a fairly
    > slow lens, since Kodachrome would have been ASA 10 or 12 back then.
     
    Hebee Jeebes, Aug 14, 2006
    #10
  11. Monkee Guest

    "Hebee Jeebes" <> wrote in message
    news:44dfeea8$0$34507$...
    >I think the biggest problem for archiving digital memories is that we
    >really don't have any way to do it. CDs and DVDs aren't reliable at least
    >not 100 years worth. At least with film the film deteriorated but most of
    >it still survives and can be recovered the same with real photographic
    >prints. Our digital memories I don't think are going to be that lucky not
    >even prints made from the "archival" printers which I don't believe are
    >anything of the like.
    >
    > My feeling is in 30 years we are going to hit a historical dark ages when
    > we all suddenly realize that our digital files are lost and gone forever.
    > We really need a sure fire way to save these files so that in 30 to 100
    > years we will still have them. That to me is the biggest problem with
    > digital technology.
    >
    > R


    Does an SD or compact flash card deteriorate on its own if not read from and
    written to?
     
    Monkee, Aug 14, 2006
    #11
  12. Rob Novak Guest

    On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:43:11 GMT, "Monkee" <> wrote:

    >Does an SD or compact flash card deteriorate on its own if not read from and
    >written to?


    Loss of physical access to the media, or media corruption, are not the
    sole reasons for data loss. Any failure, obsolescence, or loss along
    the retrieval chain must be assessed. You can have the CF card in
    fifty years, and the data on it may still be good; but you need a
    reader, the driver for the reader, and an OS that recognizes same, as
    well as software that still understands the file formats.

    Buried in a carton somewhere in my back closet, I've got a stack of 8"
    Bernoulli cartridges with a database on them. Still perfectly
    readable, I'd assume, if I could find a Bernoulli Box, an interface
    cable, an interface card that fits into a modern PC, and driver
    software that works with an OS that runs on the platform. Even then,
    I might have some difficulty reading the binary-packed, encrypted DB
    without the proprietary software that maintained it. The disks,
    therefore, are functionally useless. The data, lost. I only keep
    them around as a curiosity.
    --
    Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org
    Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net
     
    Rob Novak, Aug 14, 2006
    #12
  13. Rob Novak Guest

    On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:10 -0700, "Hebee Jeebes" <>
    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.
    --
    Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org
    Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net
     
    Rob Novak, Aug 14, 2006
    #13
  14. Cynicor Guest

    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.
     
    Cynicor, Aug 14, 2006
    #14
  15. Scott W Guest

    Rob Novak wrote:
    > On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:10 -0700, "Hebee Jeebes" <>
    > 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
     
    Scott W, Aug 14, 2006
    #15
  16. Paul Heslop Guest

    Scott W wrote:
    >
    > Rob Novak wrote:
    > > On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:10 -0700, "Hebee Jeebes" <>
    > > 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.
    --
    Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Paul Heslop, Aug 14, 2006
    #16
  17. Tony Polson Guest

    "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:

    >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,


    .... film photographers ...

    > 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.


    .... digital photographers!

    ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 14, 2006
    #17
  18. Scott W Guest

    Paul Heslop wrote:
    > Scott W wrote:
    > >
    > > Rob Novak wrote:
    > > > On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:10 -0700, "Hebee Jeebes" <>
    > > > 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




    > Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
    > ------------------------------------------------------
    > Stop and Look
    > http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Scott W, Aug 14, 2006
    #18
  19. Paul Heslop Guest

    Scott W wrote:
    >
    > Paul Heslop wrote:
    > > Scott W wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Rob Novak wrote:
    > > > > On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:10 -0700, "Hebee Jeebes" <>
    > > > > 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)


    --
    Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Paul Heslop, Aug 14, 2006
    #19
  20. Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Every thing brakes down over time, that is the nature of all things. The
    question is how fast and even if they did will you still have a way read
    them in 30, 40, 50 or more years. Negatives and photographic prints don't
    have this problem. I doubt they ever will.

    R


    "Monkee" <> wrote in message
    news:pC2Eg.3403$...
    >
    > "Hebee Jeebes" <> wrote in message
    > news:44dfeea8$0$34507$...
    >>I think the biggest problem for archiving digital memories is that we
    >>really don't have any way to do it. CDs and DVDs aren't reliable at least
    >>not 100 years worth. At least with film the film deteriorated but most of
    >>it still survives and can be recovered the same with real photographic
    >>prints. Our digital memories I don't think are going to be that lucky not
    >>even prints made from the "archival" printers which I don't believe are
    >>anything of the like.
    >>
    >> My feeling is in 30 years we are going to hit a historical dark ages when
    >> we all suddenly realize that our digital files are lost and gone forever.
    >> We really need a sure fire way to save these files so that in 30 to 100
    >> years we will still have them. That to me is the biggest problem with
    >> digital technology.
    >>
    >> R

    >
    > Does an SD or compact flash card deteriorate on its own if not read from
    > and written to?
    >
    >
     
    Hebee Jeebes, Aug 15, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Martin O'Brien

    Making poster from digital pic

    Martin O'Brien, May 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    311
    Guest
    May 21, 2005
  2. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Gaga

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Nov 16, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    586
    Rôgêr
    Nov 21, 2007
  3. tony cooper

    Re: Look Out Lady Gaga

    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    245
    tony cooper
    Nov 16, 2010
  4. tony cooper

    Re: Look Out Lady Gaga

    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    240
    Whisky-dave
    Nov 17, 2010
  5. tony cooper

    Re: Look Out Lady Gaga

    tony cooper, Nov 17, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    234
    peter
    Nov 18, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page