Incredible photography

[Osirisra (Ken)]

Speechless, time portals indeed.

[lacad01 (Adam)]

Thanks for sharing that link H., almost like stepping back in time and actually being there!

[gary]

Hi H,

Thanks for posting a link to these marvelous images.

You can find more of same here -
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...-color/100122/

Only last Saturday in the early hours of the morning on the observing field, I was
chatting to a couple of our American visitors who both shared the hobby of printing
Kodachrome transparencies.

They spoke with a nostalgic sadness of when in 2010 Dywane's Photo in Kansas closed
what was the last remaining Kodachrome processing lab.

Originally Posted by Octane

Kodachrome ASA (now ISO) speed of 25

That's far too fast. Back then it would have been around ASA 10 or 8.
Even though you can see the photographers have used additional
lights in many cases and possibly a flash bulb, it is little wonder the indoor
subjects had to hold still their poses.

However, this had the added side effect that the subjects take on the
appearance of everyday working-class living statue heroes. A theme
popularly used in propaganda by countries to this day.

One of the reasons Kodachrome was so loved was because it was so forgiving
in its dynamic range, even more so when it was projected. The worse you could
do is over expose it but it was quite recoverable when underexposed.
Printing it, as opposed to projecting it, because of the nature of the print medium,
lost so much of the dynamic range of the image.

One can only imagine how good the original transparencies of these particular war
time images would be when projected on a screen.

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I really enjoyed them, though I was surprised about the colour images for some reason I expected black and white was colour just new or had it been around for awhile in 1942 sorry for the newb question.

Hi Warren. Kodachrome, which was just one type of color transparency film,
was introduced in the mid 1930's. A lot of film during the war was shot in color.

Consider the motion picture The Wizard of Oz shot in Technicolor in 1939.
The color film was so slow though that the studios were apparently ablaze with
hot lights to provide sufficient illumination and actors in costumes suffered the
heat and some claimed eye damage from the lighting intensity.

Apart from their technical sophistication and skill by which they were
shot, these vivid WWII images also have significant historical value, both
as wonderful examples of war time propaganda and an insight into the formidable
industrial and military might of the U.S. at the time. For those who have
either owned or had the opportunity to closely examine first hand equipment
such as U.S. made military radio gear from the era, one marvels at the materials,
the attention to detail in the wiring looms and often no expense spared precision
of their assembly.

Thanks again for bringing these wonderful images to our attention.

[Poita (Peter)]

Originally Posted by gary

Hi H,



One of the reasons Kodachrome was so loved was because it was so forgiving
in its dynamic range, even more so when it was projected. The worse you could
do is over expose it but it was quite recoverable when underexposed.
Printing it, as opposed to projecting it, because of the nature of the print medium,
lost so much of the dynamic range of the image.

One can only imagine how good the original transparencies of these particular war
time images would be when projected on a screen.

Actually, depending on the way these were scanned, we may be seeing them as good as or better than they would look projected. Print has a very limited dynamic range, but a modern IPS monitor can outperform a projection system, and we are effectively seeing them backlit as well.

[gary]

Originally Posted by Poita

Actually, depending on the way these were scanned, we may be seeing them as good as or better than they would look projected. Print has a very limited dynamic range, but a modern IPS monitor can outperform a projection system, and we are effectively seeing them backlit as well.

Hi Peter,

Alas, even with regards to one step in the process of re-producing them
digitally, specifically as soon as the images were converted to jpeg, dynamic
range would have been lost. In other words, the data is literally no longer there.
So no matter what device is used to display the reproductions, one can no longer
bring back all the information that was inherent to the originals.

Nevertheless, it is testimony to the quality of the original transparencies, the
sophistication of the scanning and post processing and modern display technology
that enables us to admire them from half a world away.

One can only imagine how much time was spent by archivists in removing
the last signs of scratches and dust artifacts and in that regard, they are more than likely to excel the originals.

[Ausrock (Chris)]

H, many thanks for the links.

The responses here make me curious as to how many of our members have actually worked with film and especially worked with cameras without inbuilt metering etc. My first "good" camera was a Pentax S2.........look at the subject, look at available light, weigh up reflections, etc., and then set f/stop and speed and off you go . I still have all my B&W processing gear, unfortunately, my favourite film, Kodak's TechPan 2415 is no longer available.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Hi Chris,

I started shooting black and white film on my father's Pentax 35mm SLR when I was 16 or 17. Developed the film, too.

Then, moved on to coloured film, but, nothing exotic.

Along came the digital revolution and I jumped on board. I've come full circle now as I've been shooting Astia, Velvia, ACROS and XP2 in 120 format.

Just this weekend I shot parts of a wedding (during formals) in ACROS.

H

[erick (Eric)]

Yep, Pentax KX and shot black and white and processed it myself for a while. Shot lots of Ektachrome and Fuji slide film over many years. Always wanted to process my own slides, but never got around to it. Had a separate light meter, but have always had in-camera light metering.

[lacad01 (Adam)]

Originally Posted by Ausrock

H, many thanks for the links.

The responses here make me curious as to how many of our members have actually worked with film and especially worked with cameras without inbuilt metering etc. My first "good" camera was a Pentax S2.........look at the subject, look at available light, weigh up reflections, etc., and then set f/stop and speed and off you go . I still have all my B&W processing gear, unfortunately, my favourite film, Kodak's TechPan 2415 is no longer available.

My first camera was a Konica Autoreflex TC which I got when I was 15 - many years ago now . It had the luxury of an in-built meter and shutter-priority auto mode however never got into processing side of things.

[Ausrock (Chris)]

I've never worked "professionally" but I had a Bronica SQ-Am for a long time and these days regret having sold it. Actually, I've started looking around for a medium format again...........just have to justify it to the better half

Originally Posted by Octane

.......... I've come full circle now as I've been shooting Astia, Velvia, ACROS and XP2 in 120 format.

H

[Ric]

Wonderful images H, a great find.

The photographer sure knew his stuff.

Some of those shots remind me of stories my mother used to tell me about how she used to wire in the electricals of tanks during WW2 in England.