2020 New Random Pics

[GH85Carrera]

Inside a home in, 1942, photo by John Collier.






Another job for the SdKfz 9/1 of Hamburg Fire Brigade after the war




The Oxford Arms Inn in London was originally built in the 16th century and rebuilt following the Great Fire of 1666. It was still occupied when photographed here in 1875 but was threatened by demolition.
It was pulled down three years later, making way for a range of new houses.
Britain was slow to create a state-sponsored programme to protect and record the historic environment. In the 19th century, concerned individuals and groups helped to fill the gap.
The pressure they brought to bear encouraged the gradual evolution of nationwide programmes to record and care for historical monuments and to build up our remarkable collections, which now serve to document the nation's past.
An early group was the Society for Photographing Relics of Old London. It was formed in 1875 to record historic buildings threatened by development and made copies of its photographs available to subscribers. Photographers Alfred and John Bool captured the Oxford Arms Inn for the Society.

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

8x10 film and a tripod mounted camera. HUGE film stock and the image is not enlarged, it is reduced. The color is likely new from this century, but the image quality of old film cameras was amazing.

That had to have been shot at 1/60th of a second or less to stop the motion, right? Did they have color film that fast in 1903 (unless it was staged)? I really don't know, but that seems like the best color shot I've ever seen in that era.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

That had to have been shot at 1/60th of a second or less to stop the motion, right? Did they have color film that fast in 1903 (unless it was staged)? I really don't know, but that seems like the best color shot I've ever seen in that era.

I'd guess it was colorized later, much later.

[GH85Carrera]

It was likely shot in B&W and colorized in recent years. They can do amazing colorization now.

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

I'd guess it was colorized later, much later.

I'm certain you're right. The colorization in this is exquisite. I don't think the shutter speed was much faster than 1/60th. You can see the motion blur in this large B&W version.

https://www.shorpy.com/node/13150?size=_original#caption

[GH85Carrera]

Large format 8x10 film is just hard to understand how much detail is captured unless you have worked with it. I used to shoot 8x10 transparencies of oil paintings so they could be scanned and reproduced. I would spend all day to get just one "perfect" transparency of a large paintings. To eliminate all the reflections, and have the color dead nuts was a challenge.

It is the equivalent of a digital camera with a several gigabyte file.

All of that is just not done now, it is "good enough" for a happy snap of poor quality.













In early 1930, Allison manager N. H. Gilman sketched a design for a 559 kW (750-hp), 12-cylinder engine that would incorporate high-temperature glycol cooling and a turbosupercharger. The U.S. Navy contracted with Allison to supply the engine (known as the V-1710-A) for use on its airships. Originally known for modified Liberty engines and developing propeller reduction gears, this was the first of Allison’s own engines. Two years later the Army ordered a modified, more powerful version; redesigned during development and reintroduced in 1936 as the V-1710-C6.
Allison built more than 47,000 V-1710s in 57 versions. During World War II they powered various models of the Lockheed P-38, Curtiss P-40, Bell P-39 and P-63, and North American P-51. This artifact was the first Allison V-1710 engine to be flown. The Army Air Corps bought it in 1936 and flew it for 300 hours in the Consolidated XA-11A attack aircraft.

[daepp]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

Somebody call HeavyD!

[masraum]

Originally Posted by craigster59

Coney Island, New York City, photographed in 1903.

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

The quality of that image seems too good for 1903 to me.

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

8x10 film and a tripod mounted camera. HUGE film stock and the image is not enlarged, it is reduced. The color is likely new from this century, but the image quality of old film cameras was amazing.

Exactly what Glenn (lifetime photographer) said.

Most of the film that most of us have dealt with is 35mm. So the image is recorded on a spot not much bigger than a postage stamp. Most of the cameras back then used a piece of glass the size of a piece of notebook paper. The amount of detail in a photo with good light and no motion was amazing.

Go to https://www.shorpy.com/

Great site full of scans of historic negatives, many, these huge glass plates.

check out the detail in this one. Once you pull up the page, you can click the image and that should make it full size.


https://www.shorpy.com/node/26855

random pics of rusty old tools and things in a "cave" in France.

[rockfan4]

Film is remarkable, we gave up so much going to digital photos. I have a 4x5 of my mother sitting in a wheelchair, with a person standing behind her. Using a jeweler's loupe, I can read that woman's nametag.

This woman is obviously using a cell phone. Explain that.

[URY914]

[URY914]

[masraum]

Originally Posted by URY914

Sheesh, stay outta NV!

Seems maybe nukes are bad for your health.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by rockfan4

Film is remarkable, we gave up so much going to digital photos. I have a 4x5 of my mother sitting in a wheelchair, with a person standing behind her. Using a jeweler's loupe, I can read that woman's nametag.

This woman is obviously using a cell phone. Explain that.

Large format film can have remarkable detail, but it is cumbersome to carry around, and 20 years ago it was about 15 bucks per exposure! Every click of the shutter was crazy expensive when buying the film right from Kodak with a dealer's price and the processing done in house.

I wonder what a box of 10 sheets of 8x10 color transparency or negative film costs now? And then you have to pay for processing. And have a way to print it. We had two 10x10 enlargers. One was for up to 30x40 prints, the other was for up to 12 foot wide prints.

[GH85Carrera]

Residents of the small town of Nethers, Virginia hanging out at the post office / general store. Photographed 1935 by Arthur Rothstein for the Farm Security Administration.

[jcwade]

This woman is obviously using a cell phone. Explain that.

[/QUOTE]

I have recently seen several old pictures that were labeled to show people using cell phones or even a Roman burial carving claiming to show a woman using a laptop.
This is claimed as evidence for time travel.

But If I take my cell phone or computer out into the middle of nowhere, there is no service.

The Romans or Victorians did not have the infrastructure to support modern technology.
Stupid is as stupid does.

[Evans, Marv]

Originally Posted by masraum;11845710[IMG

https://www.atomicheritage.org/sites/default/files/Small%20Boy%20test%201962.jpg[/IMG]

In the early fifties, I lived in a small California town named Tehachapi - elevation 4K ft. During that time, they would announce nuclear tests and they happened usually around 6:00 AM. A couple of times I went out in the front yard and sat on the lawn to wait for the test to occur. When it happened, it would be a sharp, piercing, heavy sounding bang. It wasn't a clap, & didn't echoe. I as amazed I could hear it all that way from Nevada.

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by Geronimo '74

I guess looking bored, is a look these days

[craigster59]

The photo was taken from a FB page History In Color. Lots of cool recently colorized photos there. There's also a website...

People continue to browse Holland House Library after it was badly damaged during a German air raid on London, England. Photograph taken on the 23 October 1940.

Credit: color_byangelina on Instagram
historycolored.com

[Geronimo '74]

Originally Posted by svandamme

I guess looking bored, is a look these days

]

Who cares?
She’d probably look great pinching out a loaf.
Besides do you smile constantly?

[svandamme]

No I don't but I'm not a model either.

I just think that "serious" look as you call it, really doesn't do much for her.
Doesn't look serious to me , as in thinking serious or concerned or whatever , just looks bored to me..