 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I apologize for the more blog-style posting, but...
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
Even though this is just a posed photo (and they have clearly suited up
for the photo instead of being their casual clothes) you can still read a
lot from the photo when you really start to examine it. It can excite your
imagination a lot if you study it long enough.
Or take for example this panoramic photo of RMS Lusitania taken in 1907:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/The_Lusitania_at_end_of_record_voyage_1907_LC-USZ62-64956.jpg
The amount of interesting detail in this photo is staggering.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote in message
news:47d2c84a@news.povray.org...
> I apologize for the more blog-style posting, but...
>
> 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
>
> Even though this is just a posed photo (and they have clearly suited up
> for the photo instead of being their casual clothes) you can still read a
> lot from the photo when you really start to examine it. It can excite your
> imagination a lot if you study it long enough.
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.
>
> Or take for example this panoramic photo of RMS Lusitania taken in 1907:
>
>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/The_Lusitania_at_end_of_record_voyage_1907_LC-USZ62-64956.jpg
>
> The amount of interesting detail in this photo is staggering.
All I see is that we are more powerful than ants with that ship there.
;)
Nice images.
~Steve~
>
> --
> - Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> You're not kidding. I love these photo's too, but did you notice the boy
> wearing a dress, (left, top row)?
According to the caption that's "Rosa Lee Hatfield (daughter of Anderson)".
Might have a boyish face (at least in this photo), but most probably a girl.
> And is that, (shall we say), a 'short'
> blond haired lady to the right?
Who?
> > Or take for example this panoramic photo of RMS Lusitania taken in 1907:
> >
> >
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/The_Lusitania_at_end_of_record_voyage_1907_LC-USZ62-64956.jpg
> >
> > The amount of interesting detail in this photo is staggering.
> All I see is that we are more powerful than ants with that ship there.
> ;)
One thing I find interesting in that foto are the "taxis". Quite different
from modern taxis, but already crowding places like that. :)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The amount of interesting detail in this photo is staggering.
I bet they spent *years* modeling it :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47d2df8c@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> You're not kidding. I love these photo's too, but did you notice the
>> boy
>> wearing a dress, (left, top row)?
>
> According to the caption that's "Rosa Lee Hatfield (daughter of
> Anderson)".
> Might have a boyish face (at least in this photo), but most probably a
> girl.
Ok, I missed the caption, but looking at all the females there, yes,
they all have short hair styled like a man's, except for the blond girl to
the right behind the boy holding the gun. Is that another girl possibly
sitting on a chair?
>
>> And is that, (shall we say), a 'short'
>> blond haired lady to the right?
>
> Who?
The blond girl above.
>
>> > Or take for example this panoramic photo of RMS Lusitania taken in
>> > 1907:
>> >
>> >
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/The_Lusitania_at_end_of_record_voyage_1907_LC-USZ62-64956.jpg
>> >
>> > The amount of interesting detail in this photo is staggering.
>
>> All I see is that we are more powerful than ants with that ship
>> there.
>> ;)
>
> One thing I find interesting in that foto are the "taxis". Quite
> different
> from modern taxis, but already crowding places like that. :)
Heh, it's exponential Warp! ;)
Actually, one thing that did spring to mind in our (humans) favour when
I first saw the image was: Organised.
But then, ants are too...
~Steve~
>
> --
> - Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > The amount of interesting detail in this photo is staggering.
> I bet they spent *years* modeling it :)
Yeah. 1:1 scale models. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> Ok, I missed the caption, but looking at all the females there, yes,
> they all have short hair styled like a man's, except for the blond girl to
> the right behind the boy holding the gun. Is that another girl possibly
> sitting on a chair?
"Levicy Emma Hatfield (daughter of Cap)", says the caption.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47d2c84a@news.povray.org...
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/HatfieldClan.jpg
Look at the Dovetails on that wooden structure behind them.
Brilliant! Ask a carpenter to copy that now, (in that scale) and he'll
give you a competitive quote... ;)
~Steve~
> - Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> The amount of interesting detail in this photo is staggering.
>> I bet they spent *years* modeling it :)
> Yeah. 1:1 scale models. ;)
LOL. Standing in a Cornell box?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:09:30 -0500, Warp wrote:
> I apologize for the more blog-style posting, but...
...you don't have a blog? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:09:30 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > I apologize for the more blog-style posting, but...
> ...you don't have a blog? ;-)
Not really. I have a rant page, but that's about it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> a écrit dans le message de news:
47d2e02b$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
>> The amount of interesting detail in this photo is staggering.
>
> I bet they spent *years* modeling it :)
and a submarine spent few hours demodeling it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:22:22 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:09:30 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > I apologize for the more blog-style posting, but...
>
>> ...you don't have a blog? ;-)
>
> Not really. I have a rant page, but that's about it.
Maybe you need a blog, then. ;-)
<scnr>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. :)
and to think Buster Keaton and Charles Chaplin were just a few years away...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> 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. :)
>
> 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 ;)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> 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. :)
>>
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> Damn, those guys sure would use those guns if you messed them about.
You bet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8 Mar 2008 12:09:30 -0500, Warp wrote:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/HatfieldClan.jpg
>
> Even though this is just a posed photo (and they have clearly suited up
> for the photo instead of being their casual clothes) you can still read a
> lot from the photo when you really start to examine it. It can excite your
> imagination a lot if you study it long enough.
"We and our guns!"
Even the brat on the right edge is carrying a gun.
And he's pointing it at the private parts of the mustache man
on the right edge...
--
Joel Yliluoma - http://iki.fi/bisqwit/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I apologize for the more blog-style posting, but...
>
> 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:
>
I ran across this someplace - I believe someone posted a link here
several years ago.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 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 :)
Except for a camera, it seems. OTOH, it was a novelty and somewhat
rare, so they probably thought it'd be good for posterity to come out
seriously in a photo than laughing like a mad dog. Perhaps people began
to take photos less seriously at around the time Einstein showed the
tongue. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Is it not because, getting your photograph taken was a *serious* thing that
> happened only occasionally.
yes, I just came to that conclusion in the post above... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> I ran across this someplace - I believe someone posted a link here
> several years ago.
>
> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
Truly amazing! Color photos from way before Technicolor! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
>
> Truly amazing! Color photos from way before Technicolor! :)
I recently saw a printed scan (=just a photo scanned in 48-bit colours
and printed, *no* serious enhancing between) of a photo from late
1800's. It had light, but clear colors, you could surely see them.
Then I saw the original photo, it was in black and white. That's one
reason why old B&W photos are so much more living than digital B&W
-photos, they aren't really B&W, they have *a lot* of shades which still
hold some of the color information, even though it's not clearly visible.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen, ja cie krence.
Nie lepiej Maniek Mamuci Maniak?
> Then I saw the original photo, it was in black and white. That's one
> reason why old B&W photos are so much more living than digital B&W
> -photos, they aren't really B&W, they have *a lot* of shades which still
> hold some of the color information, even though it's not clearly visible.
>
Robb Kendrick's photos comes to mind.
Well, his photos are contemporary, but technology - as old as photography... :)
< http://www.robbkendrick.com/ >
Slawek
--
________
_/ __/ __/ Watch your step!
\__ \__ \_______________________________________________________________
/___/___/ S�awomir Szczyrba steev/AT/hot\dot\pl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 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.
I recall reading that the original photographs took several minutes to
expose. Long enough that photographers had chairs with little sticks
with pads on them to hold your head still while you sat.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47d5025e@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> Damn, those guys sure would use those guns if you messed them about.
>
> You bet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud
Meant to say Warp, thanks for that link, I did read it when you posted
it. Good reading. Explains a lot with the image.
In all honesty, those guys were just looking after their property imo,
(forget the pig, that was just some excuse along the way), the same would
happen now if you tried to invade your neighbours house (for whatever reason
that would be!) - they'd kill you if they could. (I think it's legal now in
the UK with justifiable cause to do this). Not sure though.
~Steve~
>
> --
> - Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
