4x5 Kodachrome Photos **1940's** Amazing Quality...

What do you mean "staged"? Have you seen a large format camera? You don't just lug one of those around and take a casual photo without anyone noticing! :p
 
Incredible images and thanks for sharing the link. It might read a little silly but having been used to all the old black and white photos of that era these seem to "humanise" that period and bring life to the people depicted in them.
Goodness knows how even more horrific it would be to see some of the actual fighting images captured in that quality, and in colour.
 
Vimes said:
Incredible images and thanks for sharing the link. It might read a little silly but having been used to all the old black and white photos of that era these seem to "humanise" that period and bring life to the people depicted in them.
Goodness knows how even more horrific it would be to see some of the actual fighting images captured in that quality, and in colour.
Click to expand...

Meh, photograph in colour and you're taking a picture of their clothes. Photograph in black and white and you're capturing the person ;)
 
PermaBanned said:
What do you mean "staged"? Have you seen a large format camera? You don't just lug one of those around and take a casual photo without anyone noticing! :p
Click to expand...

Yes I have seen one and also seen the results which look more washed out than these pin sharp, high contrast, HDR type digital photo's.

When something is too good to be true it usually is.
 
GTRacer said:
4x5 refers to the size of the negative, which is 4x5". For comparison, Canon and Nikon's top of the range cameras have a sensor size of 36x24mm. The large negative allows for a wider range of tonality (and a better control of depth of field). There's a certain 3D effect when you work with negative sizes larger than 35mm. The colour signature is mostly down to film (Kodachrome) which was discontinued a few years ago. Some of the most iconic colour photographs were taken on that type of film, for example this:
Click to expand...


Interesting and informative reply, thanks.

Slightly off topic but could you shed any help on this as it is something I have often wondered about.

I know we are in the era of 'hd' now but why is it the classic films look so good still in comparison? Recently watched 'Godfather' and 'Where Eagles Dare' and there is just something different which made them look so 'right', hard to put it in to words really. Do you know what I mean?

Were these people using some kind of inefficient filming technique which would be too costly to use today or similar?
 
The Asgard said:
Yes I have seen one and also seen the results which look more washed out than these pin sharp, high contrast, HDR type digital photo's.

When something is too good to be true it usually is.
Click to expand...

If you've seen one that uses an older technique (usually monochrome) that fades over time, or perhaps has a light leak somewhere then i can understand your confusion. But Kodachrome is a completely different kettle of fish. It's famous for it's archival properties, not only is it fantastic in terms of resolution and colour reproduction, even by today's standards, but it lasts for ever. The only real competitor in that respect is Cibachrome.

This was taken on Ektar 4x5 (credit to Rod.F on TP). Does that look washed out to you?

Ice Rich said:
Interesting and informative reply, thanks.

Slightly off topic but could you shed any help on this as it is something I have often wondered about.

I know we are in the era of 'hd' now but why is it the classic films look so good still in comparison? Recently watched 'Godfather' and 'Where Eagles Dare' and there is just something different which made them look so 'right', hard to put it in to words really. Do you know what I mean?

Were these people using some kind of inefficient filming technique which would be too costly to use today or similar?
Click to expand...

Digital imaging may be high definition, but that doesn't mean it's higher definition than film. It's nearly impossible to gauge in terms of "megapixels", but a decent film will have such a high resolution that there is no way the digital scanner you're using to capture it will be able to match it.

That's why you can get movies shot on film in high definition, but it's not necessarily why they feel "right". The grain and dust are so much a part of the film culture that when you see a digital film without it the 'perfection' just doesn't sit right. It can be too clean, not enough character in the medium. There's that, and the superior dynamic range, colour reproduction, attitudes in using it etc...
 
Awesome pictures.

Funny how used to health & safety we are now - looking at the lack of protective equipment in those drilling/grinding pictures actually makes me cringe :D
 
I love large format photography. I used to use 5x4 transparency loads at uni then scanned and tweaked in Photoshop. I never dared use 10x8" but wish I'd taken the chance to do so now.
To the guy asking about the weird effect you sometimes see could you mean cross processing?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm...l7857l0l8628l22l22l7l1l1l0l161l1147l13j1l14l0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_processing?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Basically you use colour neg/standard film processing with transparency/slide film to give a highly stylized effect.

Love the images btw they really look scarily recent.
 
The Asgard said:
Looks staged to me too. The women look too clean for the work they are doing.

Great pictures, just not convinced of the source or time they were taken.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse they're staged, most of them seem to originate to the "Office of War Information"; so basically WW2 propaganda for the yanks.

They are certainly from that era though, you've clearly never seen large format photography before.:rolleyes:
 
~>Dg<~ said:
great pics have been touched up though
Click to expand...

Can you tell by the pixels?

What possible evidence could you have that they've been touched up more than they've been looked after and scanned using a decent scanner. Sometimes you have to compensate for scanning deficiencies, off contrast and stuff like that, but it's not 'touching up'.
 
blatently obvious .

you know how ? cause they look to sharp . they have been over tweaked . they are good pics but been slightly over done.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
blatently obvious .

you know how ? cause they look to sharp . they have been over tweaked . they are good pics but been slightly over done.
Click to expand...

They'll be sharp because they'll have been taken at quite a high aperture, probably around f8, which is kind of typical for lenses of the time. Lenses, i might add, that are basically exactly the same design as a lot of high end ones today. The main difference in Tessar/Planar (and i guess Triplets, which can still take great pictures) lenses of a hundred years ago and the same lenses of yesterday is a question of coatings. The glass isn't that different and the design has barely changed. The electronics might be (as in, they actually exist) but they don't effect the quality of the image in any way.

There are a few ways to digitally enhance sharpness but none of them work that well and there are always telltale signs that they've been used, which aren't present here.

Do you actually know what you're talking about or are you making this up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom