Not exactly a typecast.
Qualifies for retrotech. 1942
However one of the radio lists where I belong sent the following link of some excellent retro large format Kodachromes. A very good example of real photography that will put digital imaging to shame, especially when the digital files are over 60 years old and converted from format to format or whatever will need done to try and preserve something that continually changes.
http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com/303194.html?thread=22669914
The image quality is excellent, color is like the day they were taken, sharpness that rivals anything today.
The site is in Russian? The captions are all in English. The ladies are doing all the work.
Very cool! He created a very nice collection. I looked up some of the originals at Shorpy where they can be blown up. The fine grain is impressive.
ReplyDeleteA RED digital body or Phase 1 back might deliver this kind of resolution and dynamic range. As you point out, the digital files themselves may not have any meaning a few decades.
I used to shoot RAW, but the proprietary format creates almost instant obsolescence. I shoot JPG in hopes that it will still be worthwhile digital data in the near future.
For shooting I really want I shoot RAW and do my editing and save to Jpeg. Unfortunately digital files of any format corrupt easier than good old transparencies stored correctly (or negative film for that matter). Hopefully the chemistry for processing will be available for decades to come.
DeleteLeaf also makes some very nice digital backs for Medium and Large Format $30,000.00 and up. Still I do not think as much of digital photography as I do real good old film, especially transparency for color.
If it weren't for ditital imaging it'd be almost impossible to do what we do on line. So the Luddite in me gives up and I do use and enjoy digital photography.
I Forgot something. I did not see them on Shorpy. I need to look. There are so many neat old photos there I get lost in them.
DeleteAnd I think there may be some Leaf backs for around $10,000.00 I do not keep up with them because of the expense and short life until they are obsolete or replaced by a different one.
These are such good quality, well done for finding them! X
ReplyDeleteGreat photos! And I think I found some typewritten pages inside. :)
ReplyDeleteBill, thanks for the link! Those photos are extraordinary! I stupidly assumed that photos from that era couldn't be sharp and clear due to the limitations of the equipment. I'm glad to stand corrected. And it probably says more about how little I know about the medium's history. I was unaware that colour photography back then could look so rich. I suppose I based my assumption on how few colour motion pictures Hollywood was producing in the early '40s, but then, there was a war on, wasn't there?
ReplyDeleteThanks again for the link.
very impressive! The discussion reminds me of this:
ReplyDeletehttp://1848.cincinnatilibrary.org/index.php
There was a radio show about it, how they could find details in objects miles away in the background.
The quality is amazing - thanks for sharing them! And sadly, I wonder what will become of all our digital photos in a few years.
ReplyDeleteWow! These are absolutely brilliant. I'll be sharing these with my husband when he gets home from work--he's an aerospace engineer. How sad is it that Kodachrome is no more? It's definitely superior to my digital camera!
ReplyDeleteLauren,
DeleteI too mourn the loss of Kodachrome. There is no other film that can render a photo as sharply or accurately. Fuji is good, but just does not cut it. Fuji exaggerates the colors, especially red and yellow way too much yielding unnatural colors. Some of the European transparency films do a good job. None do as good a Kodachrome.
Quite amazing quality, not merely the resolution but in the subject matter. The posed shots are good but the candid ones are superb. Sadly we are losing all the labs that process film, here at least. I used to shoot 120 regularly in my old TLR's and Hassy, but now I have pretty much quit, due to the cost and the lack of labs. We are lucky to have 35mm still around, but it simply cannot compare to 120. Truth is almost nothing can compare to a film neg at 4x5. However, I have a roll of 127 b&w in my Kowaflex... trying to make every shot count there.
ReplyDelete