[OT] Stunning WWII manufacturing photos

Winston fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@news3.newsguy.com:

I think it's important to repeat what someone else wrote earlier, and to make another point.

1) The "excellent" pictures you're viewing are in greatly-reduced- resolution digital representations of the real 4x5 transparencies. 2) The excellence comes from exquisitely skilled lighting, composition, and framing, along with appropriate selection of subjects. Anybody with a 10Mp camera can produce pictures with that _clarity_, but most wouldn't likely be able to convey the _message_ with that clarity.

LLoyd

Check out the photo captioned (about number 26 down the page):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "October 1942. "Thousands of North American Aviation employees at Inglewood, California, look skyward as the bomber and fighter planes they helped build perform overhead during a lunch period air show. This plant produces the battle-tested B-25 'Billy Mitchell' bomber, used in General Doolittle's raid on Tokyo, and the P-51 'Mustang' fighter plane, which was first brought into prominence by the British raid on Dieppe."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lots of black bags under those folks' eyes. They look like they are busting ass working long hours on not much sleep. Factory probably going non-stop 24/7. Dave

What struck me, not many of them looking skyward.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

.

Check out the photo captioned (about number 26 down the page):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "October 1942. "Thousands of North American Aviation employees at Inglewood, California, look skyward as the bomber and fighter planes they helped build perform overhead during a lunch period air show. This plant produces the battle-tested B-25 'Billy Mitchell' bomber, used in General Doolittle's raid on Tokyo, and the P-51 'Mustang' fighter plane, which was first brought into prominence by the British raid on Dieppe."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lots of black bags under those folks' eyes. They look like they are busting ass working long hours on not much sleep. Factory probably going non-stop 24/7. Dave

Even in 1942, they were probably smart enough to not do the show directly above all those workers they needed... :) Many do seem to be looking up at a low angle, but then again, most of the other pictures were clearly "posed" for so the photographer may have just said "hey, everyone look over there!"

sorry, I disagree, you would not be able to do the same quality with a 10Mp camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side by side, you would not have that depth

snipped-for-privacy@work.com fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Are you brain dead, or do you intentionally refuse to read what people write before you post, just so you can appear stupid?

Depth? Do you have any idea what that means? Did you mean dynamic range? Did you mean depth of field? Did you even care before you spouted an "artistic-sounding" word? (yeah... I know... go Google the terms, then come back and post something like you knew all along)

The pictures YOU saw were not 4x5 transparencies, they were highly reduced-resolution digitals... In some cases, you saw digital versions of even less quality than a decent 5MP camera would produce...

Twit!

LLoyd

ok Llyod Mr Know it all, I did not realize one had to use exact terms, phrases when speaking to someone who supposedly knows something about photography which you said you or think you do.

but seeing how you can not seem to make a point without being ignorant, I won't waste me time with you any further than this dipshit.

snipped-for-privacy@work.com fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

In other words, you had no idea what I wrote.

LLoyd

in other words you had to spend a ton of time looking up photography to be able to try and make yourself feel better than someone else, your wrong plain and simple, digital does not look as good as film, and again I will say it, digital does not look as good as film. need me to repeat it again?

and so you can understand it again, I will say this again as well, never did I say digital sucks, I said it is not as good as film

I am not a professional photographer, but I have had photography classes, even took a short one from a professional commercial photographer, all for fun.

and one more time, seeing how you seem to have reading comprehension issues,

your ignorant replies prove my point.

snipped-for-privacy@home.com fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I guess that's why I had a darkroom with a Simmon-Omega enlarger with 4x5 condensors AND a color head, Heath "color canoe" for E6, the whole gamut of PolyContrast-II filters and papers, and did it for about 25 years...

But other than that, yeah... I had to look up a LOT of stuff...

Like this... You didn't SEE any film there, dunce! You saw a reduced- resolution digital copy of the film. Yet, you make the silly-assed comment that the pictures had more "depth" than digital would.

It WAS digital. Durrrrrruuh!

Lloyd

That was worth the time I spent viewing it. From a time when exposing a 4x5 sheet of color film was expensive enough to warrant spending the time to get composition and lighting correct.

Wes

-- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Most digicams don't work well with high numerical f stops. Thus, properly lighted, a 4x5 camera will have greater depth of field than a digicam. It was one of the first things I learned when I went with compact digital cameras.

Some day, I'd like to own a DSLR with a 24x36 mm sensor, then what I learned on will be relevant again.

Just my opinion,

Wes

-- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

I learned about it when I took a photography class, I'm no pro, my best camera is still my Canon A1

you and I both, I actually have "permission" to buy the canon I had my eyes on, Why cannon? when I first had the wish for e real digital, they had a nice setup, I'm sure they are all pretty equal now (in my price range anyhow, hahah, my price range is actually less, heck if I could set up a couple good lenses and body for a couple thou, I would had done it even if I had to sell something to do so) but I just can not justify that expense for a limited hobby and the occasional photo op, for that photo, I can still drag out my A1, I wish I had owned the medium formats and been into it years earlier.

Wes, as a guy with two 4x5 cameras and 15 magazine covers behind me, you'll have one hell of a time getting a lot of depth of field with a

4x5. When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts. I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with large sheet film.

When someone talks about "depth" in photography, I think of the things that give the impression of actual, physical depth. Others have pointed to expert lighting, and that's a big part of it. Kodachrome also has (had) a slight inherent edge effect, which gives the impression of more depth. And people like me, who made his living for a while silver-masking Kodachrome slides, can tell you about another edge effect. Or you can use Unsharp Masking in Photoshop and get almost the same thing.

Anyway, it's there. But it's probably all lost in conversion to a moderate-res digital copy for the Web. You'd have to blow it up and look really close.

Ed Huntress fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Yeah... I had a Press Graffix 4x5 with a film-pack back.

It could do some sweet portrait work, though!

Lloyd

You have more patience than I do. I used my Speed Graphic for some in-the-field shots for American Machinist, but I shot covers with a Calumet 4x5 monorail. They were mostly tricky machine shots -- often multiple exposures -- which the shutters excelled at. And I did a lot of tabletop work for McGraw-Hill book company, freelance, before the M-H publications company hired me.

But silver-masking actually paid better. It was a pretty obscure darkroom skill, and I had work coming out my ears. Again, that was when I was first freelancing.

When I ended that period, my wife says my eyes had shrunk to little dots from spending full days in the darkroom. d8-)

Time for a twit filter, Lloyd.

-- Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens. -- Jimi Hendrix

Larry Jaques fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

ayup!

lighted, a 4x5

first things I

Dunno where the killfile resident gets the idea that digital cameras don't work well at high f stops. My 30d works very nicely at any f stop that any of my lenses can achieve. On the other hand, the performance of the lenses is compromised by diffraction at small apertures, but that affects any type of sensor.

But if you want a mighty shitload of depth of field, go for one of the little point-and-shoots.