 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> St. wrote:
>>> "Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote in message
>>> news:47d2c84a@news.povray.org...
>>>> Somehow I find some old photographs to be really fascinating. The
>>>> older
>>>> the photograph, the more fascinating. For example, consider this
>>>> photograph
>>>> taken in 1897:
>>>>
>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/HatfieldClan.jpg
>>> You're not kidding. I love these photo's too, but did you notice
>>> the boy wearing a dress, (left, top row)? And is that, (shall we
>>> say), a 'short' blond haired lady to the right? It makes you think
>>> about what the mindset of these people was like back then. Hard times
>>> indeed.
>>
>> The most distracting thing in these old photos is that you never see
>> anyone smiling. Hard time indeed. Either that or "cheeeese!" was
>> still to be invented. :)
>>
>> and to think Buster Keaton and Charles Chaplin were just a few years
>> away...
>
> You try standing still for 5 hours, waiting for the film to be
> completely exposed (or whatever the term was), and see if you can smile
> the whole time ;)
what?! 5 hours exposure?! Are you sure? Whenever I see Old West
movies, there is a flash and bum, photo taken. I might expect long
times of exposures -- though not 5 hours! -- for photos like these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image-Frederic_Chopin_photo_downsampled.jpeg
But that is from 1849! Not 1897, which already had cinema movies in 15
FPS or so...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> You try standing still for 5 hours, waiting for the film to be
>> completely exposed (or whatever the term was), and see if you can
>> smile the whole time ;)
>
> what?! 5 hours exposure?! Are you sure? Whenever I see Old West
> movies, there is a flash and bum, photo taken. I might expect long
> times of exposures -- though not 5 hours! -- for photos like these:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Image-Frederic_Chopin_photo_downsampled.jpeg
>
>
> But that is from 1849! Not 1897, which already had cinema movies in 15
> FPS or so...
I was exaggerating it to the point of absurdity, of course :) I
remember hearing that they had long exposure times, but I don't remember
exactly what they were. Probably around 30 seconds, but don't quote me
on that.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
this site struck a chord with me some time back:
http://www.shorpy.com/
see http://www.shorpy.com/shorpy: 'shorpy at work in 1910'
http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/01094u.jpg
maybe 12 years old at the time? he later died in a mine accident at the age
of 31, crushed by a rock. for most of his life, clearly, he knew nothing
other than that mine.
I expect the mine owner lived in a nice mansion somewhere.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospamgmailcom> wrote in message
news:47d34d33@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
>> news:47d2c84a@news.povray.org...
>>> Somehow I find some old photographs to be really fascinating. The older
>>> the photograph, the more fascinating. For example, consider this
>>> photograph
>>> taken in 1897:
>>>
>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/HatfieldClan.jpg
>> You're not kidding. I love these photo's too, but did you notice the
>> boy wearing a dress, (left, top row)? And is that, (shall we say), a
>> 'short' blond haired lady to the right? It makes you think about what the
>> mindset of these people was like back then. Hard times indeed.
>
> The most distracting thing in these old photos is that you never see
> anyone smiling. Hard time indeed. Either that or "cheeeese!" was still
> to be invented. :)
LOL - I doubt it, cheese has probably been around for some time, but
the word 'cheese', yeah, I can see these guys not knowing that word for some
reason. I dunno. Back then, I doubt if a smile would be raised by one of
them burping...
Thinking about it though, they didn't have the concept of another person
'seeing' a picture of them. So why would they smile?
>
> and to think Buster Keaton and Charles Chaplin were just a few years
> away...
Yeah, well, that's just trashed my last sentence above. ;)
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Damn, those guys sure would use those guns if you messed them about.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason wrote:
> this site struck a chord with me some time back:
>
> http://www.shorpy.com/
>
> see http://www.shorpy.com/shorpy: 'shorpy at work in 1910'
>
> http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/01094u.jpg
>
> maybe 12 years old at the time? he later died in a mine accident at the age
> of 31, crushed by a rock. for most of his life, clearly, he knew nothing
> other than that mine.
>
> I expect the mine owner lived in a nice mansion somewhere.
>
> -- Chris
Very hard times, no doubt. There was nothing to laugh about, thus, no
smiles in old photos.
Today we have the luxury of information at the fingerprints through
amazingly fast internet connections, amazing mass-production and
reproduction technologies, laugh, fun and entertainment a click away on
TV. And yet, art of our time is so comparatively poor to that of those
brutal and convulsive ages...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Very hard times, no doubt. There was nothing to laugh about, thus, no
> smiles in old photos.
It's probably the vagaries of the written word, but I can't tell if
you're serious or sarcastic here :/
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Very hard times, no doubt. There was nothing to laugh about, thus, no
> > smiles in old photos.
>
> It's probably the vagaries of the written word, but I can't tell if
> you're serious or sarcastic here :/
Serious tone. No emoticon for serious tone exists AFAIK. I've commented on the
lack of smiles in old photos before. Sure people laughed and smiled. But I
guess far too less than in the 20th century if the photos are any indication.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Very hard times, no doubt. There was nothing to laugh about, thus, no
>>> smiles in old photos.
>> It's probably the vagaries of the written word, but I can't tell if
>> you're serious or sarcastic here :/
>
> Serious tone. No emoticon for serious tone exists AFAIK. I've commented on the
> lack of smiles in old photos before. Sure people laughed and smiled. But I
> guess far too less than in the 20th century if the photos are any indication.
Given the literature I've read (remember Mark Twain, for exampl - and
let's not forget, Shakespeare was a brilliant comedian), and the
accounts of people who actually lived at the time, I don't think they
smiled any less than we do.
Besides which, I can't imagine that mirth and frivolity are modern
inventions. People have been laughing for as long as there have been
people :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:53:32 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] nospamgmailcom>
wrote:
>
>Very hard times, no doubt. There was nothing to laugh about, thus, no
>smiles in old photos.
>
Is it not because, getting your photograph taken was a *serious* thing that
happened only occasionally. Unlike today when you can take a photo of what ever
you want because almost everyone carries a camera in their phone. I remember the
first photograph that was taken of me, aged about three. It was in a studio
(because no one in the family had a camera) and it was so formal that it but me
off being in photographs for life. I am really camera shy.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
