111–120 of 196 posts
So, apparently smiling in pictures is a relatively new trend?
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?
The amount of smiling varies a lot between cultures, you can't correlate smiling with levels of happiness. Russians are known for not being big on smiling http://blog.properrussian.com/2011/05/why-russians-are-not-s... . From that article: >> There is a popular Russian saying, “A laughter without a reason is a sign of stupidity”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask any working professional photographer and they'll tell you we passed the practical resolution of film (35mm vs 35mm) years ago, and with the insanely low noise levels, we passed the dynamic range potential years ago too. With the latest cameras in hand, you can capture sharper and cleaner photographs than the best 35mm film could ever manage, and you can do it with a tiny fraction of the light (1/16th the amount,…
Maybe 35mm, but I'm still not sure have we passed the quality of medium and large film sizes. An old Hasselblad can still take pretty good pictures.
But when you factor in the convenience and availability of products like the D800, 5D3 and 1Dx, and combine that with the cost and quality of compatible glass, medium format starts to look like a marginal call indeed.
(Bear in mind, medium format DIGITAL is another thing altogether. That stuff kicks the pants off any of the pathetic baby toys made by Canon and Nikon.)
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.
these photos are from 100 years ago. 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-i…
All in all, I stand by my statement. These are accurate depictions of the color at that time, and as ludicrous as it seems - my brain is blown away that there was so much color. I know obviously there was - but years and years of my visual representation of that time period tries to tell me differently.
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.
I saw a hi-res version of this film two days ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeF4HXCq5z0 . It was almost anachronical. Low res. jittery black and white movies makes everything look obsolete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask any working professional photographer and they'll tell you we passed the practical resolution of film (35mm vs 35mm) years ago, and with the insanely low noise levels, we passed the dynamic range potential years ago too. With the latest cameras in hand, you can capture sharper and cleaner photographs than the best 35mm film could ever manage, and you can do it with a tiny fraction of the light (1/16th the amount,…
I probably mostly hear from purists and those people that don't want to look at the facts because "records are better than CD's" and similar arguments. I didn't know they were competing with medium format film now. That's .. saying something. o.o
A vinyl record is a stamp of a stamp of a stamp of a scraping of the original master. Better than a CD? Evidence of complete mental breakdown, more like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
these photos are from 100 years ago. 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-i…
It's not 'just' the work of Photoshop tho. There is a link to ones closer to the original in this discussion thread, and those are still extremely impressive. All in all, I stand by my statement. These are accurate depictions of the color at that time, and as ludicrous as it seems - my brain is blown away that there was so much color. I know obviously there was - but years and years of my visual representation of tha…
-These image captures are 3 layer BW stills, the color is from a secondary process. Its a logic thing. The colour you are seeing is from photoshop[1,2,3]. Its about as 'real' as the latest issue of XYZ magazine's cover art.[4] That's not to in any way disparage it, but the reason they look "contemporary" is because of the way the images have been post-processed in photoshop. It would be trivial, for example, to make them look like they came out of instagram. Just a tech-point. Its slightly odd nobody else pointed this out, that's all. The guy was ahead of his time in thinking through the RGB seperation process, that's what is really brilliant...no doubt about that.
[Edit: Obviously, the presence of measurable electromagnetic radiation on the Earth's atmosphere, and/or its reflectivity, is the same now as it ever was. BW light sensitive emulsions have been very good for a long time. Viz, Ansel Adams, Ed Weston, etc.]
_________________
Notes:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_RGB_color_space
[4] Literally. Digital sensor = BW. They are filtered into RGB monoochrome images, just like this guy pioneered. Then, they are reconstructed using SW. So, to the end user, it does not matter if you are starting from digital and/or analogue base images. The end images are literally the function of the SW and the Display (ie, all modern). If they were prints, they would be constrained by the tech of the print medium, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw a hi-res version of this film two days ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeF4HXCq5z0 . It was almost anachronical. Low res. jittery black and white movies makes everything look obsolete.
Thanks for the link!!! That too, is awesome.
Those stone piers are beautiful and my guess, still fully functional 100 years later.