11–20 of 28 posts
A few googles reveal much detail about the process including that it was used up to 1990s
The opening line was funny, because the Wall Street Journal famously had no photos long into the color photo era of newspapers. When did they add them? Sometime in the late 90s/2000s? Then again, financial news doesn't really lend itself to photojournalism. A photo isn't going to make the story of a bankruptcy or merger more believable. The rest of the media would show an exasperated trader on the day of a market cra…
Made me think of how I dislike articles, " often from newspapers " that seem to add (often several) photos only weekly related to article content when in my opinion only a few ( 1 or 2 ) are useful. I use a Image on/off extension, and only load images when I'm reading an article and it seems "... interesting enough ..." A side effect of such a browser extension is it reduces PC .resources. I also sometimes save a page with out images ..
My first immediate thought when I saw the title "...first photo published in a newspaper..." was to image a newspaper photo with obvious dots or their proper name "Halftones" A few googles reveal much detail about the process including that it was used up to 1990s
The opening line was funny, because the Wall Street Journal famously had no photos long into the color photo era of newspapers. When did they add them? Sometime in the late 90s/2000s? Then again, financial news doesn't really lend itself to photojournalism. A photo isn't going to make the story of a bankruptcy or merger more believable. The rest of the media would show an exasperated trader on the day of a market cra…
If we could get rid of useless stock photos, the world would be a better place. An article about headaches doesn't need a picture of someone with a headache. WE KNOW WHAT A HEADACHE IS. An article about someone arrested doesn't need a picture of a generic crime scene. An article about Facebook doesn't need a photo of a monitor at an angle showing Facebook. But apparently it drives engagement because people can't sust…
Unfortunately the site has no picture of the published newspaper print of the engraving of the photograph.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we could get rid of useless stock photos, the world would be a better place. An article about headaches doesn't need a picture of someone with a headache. WE KNOW WHAT A HEADACHE IS. An article about someone arrested doesn't need a picture of a generic crime scene. An article about Facebook doesn't need a photo of a monitor at an angle showing Facebook. But apparently it drives engagement because people can't sust…
To get around this problem , I personally use a ON/Off extension and only load images if article "...is interesting enough ..." But yes, lots of images only have a very weak usefulness ....
I'd love an extension that classifies images and somehow blocks stock photos or keeps anything that's not a photo like charts and graphs. For crime and police stories, not that I regularly stumble upon those, I want to see the real crime scene or the real perp, but not a stock photo of a police tape or a judge's gavel. If everything is "off", I wouldn't know what I'm missing.
Any French sleuths in the house that can geolocate that street? There is partial visibility of the signage for a chocolate factory. (Just curious.) p.s. AI assisted search to the rescue: "The factory visible in the photo was located in the 11th arrondissement, near the intersection of rue Saint-Maur-Popincourt and rue du Faubourg-du-Temple." link has pic of the same location today: https://marinaamaral.substack.com/p…
Hopefully this line noise goes to the right place: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8707602,2.3734964,3a,75y,261...
Any French sleuths in the house that can geolocate that street? There is partial visibility of the signage for a chocolate factory. (Just curious.) p.s. AI assisted search to the rescue: "The factory visible in the photo was located in the 11th arrondissement, near the intersection of rue Saint-Maur-Popincourt and rue du Faubourg-du-Temple." link has pic of the same location today: https://marinaamaral.substack.com/p…
Although that link doesn't actually have the picture of it today, looking at street view's history mode, what seems to have been the "Fabrique Chocolat" building (it's chimney stack is kinda distinctive, even if it was modified at some point, presumably when an extra story was added) was demolished circa 2015/2016. Hopefully this line noise goes to the right place: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8707602,2.3734964,3a…
?? Works for me. It's the second pic right after the 1848 one. See "The same place today:"
The chocolate factory is the building right after the white building with orange sign in the modern version. Same exact silhouett. So that building in Paris is almost 200 years old.
the photos by kite in early 1900s are more amazing to me https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2014/01/15/26015255... 1906 "Ruins of San Francisco, 2,000 feet above San Francisco Bay overlooking the waterfront" https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/01/14/07823u-1-edit_cu... a 49-pound camera raised above the bay with a train of Conyne kites
The exposure time of these kite photographs must have been quite short, given the obvious instability of the platform. They're very detailed, nonetheless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although that link doesn't actually have the picture of it today, looking at street view's history mode, what seems to have been the "Fabrique Chocolat" building (it's chimney stack is kinda distinctive, even if it was modified at some point, presumably when an extra story was added) was demolished circa 2015/2016. Hopefully this line noise goes to the right place: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8707602,2.3734964,3a…
> Although that link doesn't actually have the picture of it today ?? Works for me. It's the second pic right after the 1848 one. See "The same place today:" The chocolate factory is the building right after the white building with orange sign in the modern version. Same exact silhouett. So that building in Paris is almost 200 years old.
Edit: I have no idea how well these deep links to old street views actually work but here are a few of them:
2015: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8707604,2.3734989,3a,75y,271...
2016: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8707572,2.3734939,3a,75y,269...
2024: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8707802,2.3735089,3a,75y,271...