101–110 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So goes the joke: "Dad, why are there only black-and-white photos from before the early 1900s?" "Because you see, son, the world actually was black-and-white back then." "Then why were there colour portraits?" "Because you see, son, artists were insane."
^ Calvin and Hobbes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So goes the joke: "Dad, why are there only black-and-white photos from before the early 1900s?" "Because you see, son, the world actually was black-and-white back then." "Then why were there colour portraits?" "Because you see, son, artists were insane."
^ Calvin and Hobbes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course they look better. Why?
Because film captures details in molecules while a CCD sensor in your digital camera uses picture elements much, much, much larger than molecules. Or, because it's analog. It's very similar to sound recordings. Whether magnetic or not (say, in vinyl) the resolution of the captured signal can approach the molecular. Digital has a discreet resolution limited by the capturing equipment; for example, CDs reproduce the vo…
Same goes to photo film: image consists not of molecules, but of silver granules on film which are about a micron size, and either black or white. Actual resolution (which depends on contrast) is indicated on a film roll (for quality films), as a chart lp/mm vs contrast. While high resolution (and low-sensitive) film beats CCDs in this regard, reaching and somewhat exceeding 100 lp/mm which is equivalent to 2.5 microns per pixel, remember about Bayer pattern on chips to make color photos, vs about 5 microns per pixel in CCDs on DSLRs, this only comes with low sensitivity and other issues. General purpose photo films in most common shooting conditions are normally about same resolution as a good DSLR (full-frame because otherwise you have to apply a crop factor), and even than is an overshoot because most lenses does not provide that resolution, see MTF chart for most of them, the 'resolution' line is typically drawn measured at 30 lp/mm equivalent!
I am not even talking about such a fundamental effect as diffraction. It will block any further increase in image quality, whatever the lens and film is, long before you get down to 'molecules' (in fact, diffraction is in fact a limiting factor for resolution in many shooting conditions).
How important is the diffraction? Let's take practical best and worst case.
Best case: Full frame 20mpix DSLR, 6.5u pixels. Canon EF 50mm F/1.2L fixed focal length lens, resulting in about 41.6mm aperture. Resolution at peak sensitivity of 0.55 microns for this lens means that diffraction disk diameter will be 1.22 * 0.55/41666=1.61E-05 rad, which will be seen from 50mm distance (focal length, i.e. distance to film) as having 0.8u diameter - 8 times less than the pixel. So diffraction has no meaning here.
But, it is easy to see that there is a direct relationship between focal ratio and Airy disk diameter, so when diaphragm closes to 1.2*6.5/0.8 = ~f/9.7, Airy disk becomes as big as the pixel - making smaller pixel useless. This is not an extreme value - doing outdoor shooting in all-auto mode normally results in images done at f/8 or f/11 diaphragm. So, making pixels much smaller than they are now is all but useless even in a perfect optical system (which does not exist). Of course, same equally applies to film.
These are so amazing. The world wasn't sepia toned a hundred years ago! As silly as that statement is, my brain is actually having a hard time really believing these photos are from 100 years ago. I'm in awe.
This is the work of 21st century photoshop.[1,2,3]
_____________
Notes:
[1] "Each photograph takes days of painstaking Photoshop work, adjusting the color levels, removing the blemishes, adding contrast, etc."
[2] A psd has 3 RGB monochrome channels, that are blended together to create a full colour image. The analogues of which were created here using RGB filters to create meta-images on glass plate. Digitized, they become colour separations. The "contemporary look" is a result of the final post-processing.
No one is smiling. Not even the kids. Maybe the woman in #20 is, who knows? I know in general 'old time' photos didn't have people smiling much - very posed pictures and stoic expressions. I wonder if they had any idea how much this would color our impression of them 100+ years later?
Note that those shown are all heavily restored (also cropped) versions of the originals. They are all from the Library of Congress collection (~1900 of the ~3500 he made). An example of an unrestored version for comparison is at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/prok/item/prk20000025... .
Just think: in 50-100 years, the phrase "100 years ago" won't mean that much, in terms of technology.
Really? Why do you suppose? In 50-100 years, I can easily see us having a permanent presence on another planet, fully automated vehicles and a Terminator like military comprised completely of robots. That world (if true), technologically, would look amazingly different than how we live today.
These are so amazing. The world wasn't sepia toned a hundred years ago! As silly as that statement is, my brain is actually having a hard time really believing these photos are from 100 years ago. I'm in awe.
So goes the joke: "Dad, why are there only black-and-white photos from before the early 1900s?" "Because you see, son, the world actually was black-and-white back then." "Then why were there colour portraits?" "Because you see, son, artists were insane."
I've always found it interesting that people's perception of history is coloured(couldn't resist) by having only seen it in black and white. You almost have to remember that the world wasn't actually in black and white 100 years ago. It's fascinating to see photos from that far back in colour, it somehow makes it easier to empathise with the people in the shots.
Another good one is seeing ancient Greek and Roman statues in the colors they had and not just dull, white marble http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/photos/?device=andr...
