Must see 1940s color photos- with metalworking

????????????, ??????

there is nothing better than real film for photography, thanks for posting those

Excellent photos, but I think mostly due to artful lighting, good framing, etc.. They had to be scanned in to show on the web, so I'm not sure you can attribute the quality to real film as opposed to digital, especially compared to the current digital standards for professional photography.

Good digital cameras are quite close. (And please note that you said that -after- seeing a -digital- representation of a film photo. ) I was in Barnes and Noble the other day to look at Nooks. The fashion mags take really high-resolution digital photos and the Nook can display them at higher than hi-def rez. The look is flawless on close-up shots of faces in the makeup ads. See for yourself. I can't see spending $250 on a little screen like that, though.

Ditto. Did anyone else notice that nobody had hearing protectors, even the riveters and steam drop hammer operators at the forge?

Dad flew one of those B-25s. He was shot down over France and taken into a German concentration camp. He came out sixty pounds lighter ten months later when the Russian tanks knocked down the fences.

-- The greatest justice in life is that your vision and looks tend to go simultaneously. -- Kevin Bacon

The look of those 4x5 Kodachromes is magnificent. The old Time-Life series of photography books reproduced some of them, and they look like you're right there in the photo.

When I worked in NYC I used to visit the Nikon gallery on my lunch hour every couple of weeks, where they changed the exhibit frequently. One of them was all big dye-transfer fashion prints made from 4x5 Kodachromes and Ektachromes, mostly from the late '40s. I could look at them all day.

I think you can tell, and the thing about professional quality digital, is very few use the high end stuff, even when the reporters started with 10mp that was not all that long ago, getting the full frame sensors out on the market was a good step in the right direction but still does nto compete under a loom with film

yes, it was assumed to the poster he would understand that, and I assumed he knows photography or would not be looking at a site such as that

I have, and still real film has not been replaced by digital yet. although digital has come a long way, and for the end user it has moved along very fast with the introduction of full frame sensors at an "affordable" level (last I checked on the canon and nikon was over 3k for the body), look at the differences in National geographic over the years, that is a tough cookie to get a photo op submitted at least they used to be,

I would love to take those high end photos in digital, but I do not have tens of thousands to spend on a camera and lenses,

thanks

I've never heard the term "under a loom" before. (I don't weave. ;) A quick googling didn't help, either.

Anyway,

I was extremely happy with the pics I got from my Nikon 995. I am thrilled with the detail I get from my Nikon D-40. And I would be absolutely orgasmic with a D3x or D4, I'm sure. Film is -out- for me. YMMV. If you can see a difference, feel free to go with film. About

99% of us are now happy with digital. And a vast section of the unwashed is happy with phone camera pics and texting.

-- The greatest justice in life is that your vision and looks tend to go simultaneously. -- Kevin Bacon

The hi-res original are alleged to be at:

did I ever say digital was not good? No I did not

I merely said digital was not the quality of film, and 10mp was a entry standard on newspapers, and still was not photo quality

that was from a commercial photographers standards