View Full Version : Of Photography

4th Mar 2015, 13:24
Of Photography

I was pondering the history of image capture. It roughly follows a similar path as the development of powered flight and is also remarkable.

Prior to cameras the only other method was by physically creating an image, painting, drawing, carving. All of a sudden we were able to freeze a moment of time containing places and people for posterity. That moment developed from a few minutes of it in long exposures to very small fractions of a second.

At the same time this science evolved as art as well, just as creative and evocative as the finest paintings, sometimes more so.

In the beginning it was a complicated process limited to technical professionals and then along came Kodak, the Brownie and photography for the common man. Now it was possible to document all the aspects of life of everyone.

Scientific applications continued expanding to aerial, microscopic, telescopic, other light frequency recording and others. Television pictures were sent to us from the first landing on the moon. Personal photography became easier and easier with many developments in lenses and other capabilities enabling just about anyone to use highly professional equipment..

Now there is the prevalence of digital imaging and a now mostly defunct Kodak and minor roles for emulsion films. Phones take a greater proportion of image creations now. We take photos of atomic structures and far distant planets and galaxies photographed from far and distant satellites to be transmitted back to us. And it continues to amaze.

Just saying...

4th Mar 2015, 13:44
Yeah we've come on a bit technically. Pity our development as a species hasn't matched it.

4th Mar 2015, 13:44
Not totally sure it is quite the same. Flying consists of pushing a wing through the air to obtain lift. All that has changed over the years is airframe and powerplant, plus the development of extras.

Imaging has developed via completely different technologies - painting with brush and paint, film photography with light-sensitive emulsions and chemicals and digital using electronic chips. To say nothing of really clever things like MRI!

The progress in both fields has been vast, I do not disagree, but aeronautics has been incremental changes to the same concept, whereas imaging has moved into new concepts entirely.

Next development - a chip that can project an image directly into your brain??

4th Mar 2015, 13:49
As a professional, I find it interesting that no one looks for image quality anymore. People happily accept the 'mobile' quality of picture.

4th Mar 2015, 14:14
Pity our development as a species hasn't matched it. Indeed - it seems that every development in image capture and publication - be it woodcut, printing, painting, photography, digital imaging, the Internet - is very quickly used for Porn. :(

OK, maybe not MRI ..........

4th Mar 2015, 14:18

As a once keen amateur, I have two Pentax MX bodies and a variety of lens slowly rotting in a cupboard, I must agree with you.

Since the introduction of the 'digicam' there has been a maddening emphasis on the 'mega-pixel count' of the CCD.

A good lens in front of a low resolution CCD is far better than the miniscule piece of glass/plastic in the average cellphone in front of an umpteen megapixel CCD.

4th Mar 2015, 14:18
Indeed - it seems that every development in image capture and publication - be it woodcut, printing, painting, photography, digital imaging, the Internet - is very quickly used for Porn. :(
You say that like it's a bad thing. :confused:

4th Mar 2015, 15:08
then along came Kodak, the Brownie and photography for the common man.
And where are they now?

January 2012: Kodak received a warning from the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) notifying it that its average closing price was below $1.00 for 30 consecutive days and that over the next 6 months it must increase the closing share price to at least $1 on the last trading day of each calendar month and have an average closing price of at least $1 over the 30 trading-days prior or it would be delisted. From the $90 range in 1997, Kodak shares closed at 76 cents on January 3, 2012.
As part of a turnaround strategy, Kodak focused on digital photography and digital printing and attempted to generate revenues through aggressive patent litigation.
In January 2012, Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In February 2012, Kodak announced that it would cease making digital cameras, pocket video cameras and digital picture frames and focus on the corporate digital imaging market.
In August 2012, Kodak announced the intention to sell its photographic film (excluding motion picture film), commercial scanners and kiosk operations as a measure to emerge from bankruptcy.
In January 2013, the Court approved financing for the company to emerge from bankruptcy by mid-2013.
Kodak sold many of its patents for approximately $525,000,000 to a group of companies (including Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Samsung, Adobe Systems and HTC) under the name Intellectual Ventures and RPX Corporation.
On September 3, 2013, Kodak emerged from bankruptcy having shed its large legacy liabilities and exited several businesses.
Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging are now part of Kodak Alaris, a separate company owned by the U.K.-based Kodak Pension Plan.

4th Mar 2015, 15:14
As a professional, I find it interesting that no one looks for image quality anymore. People happily accept the 'mobile' quality of picture.

Same with music, folk are happy with in ear headphones and mp3 quality.

tony draper
4th Mar 2015, 15:53
Read a interesting statistic the other day,there are more photographs taken in three minutes now than in the first fifty years of photography, :uhoh:

4th Mar 2015, 18:13
An interesting statistic Tony, which I shall share with some friends. I suspect that the quality of many of those pictures from the first fifty years, knocks the majority of today's shots into a cocked-hat.
I've dabbled with film and digital photography, but I still think that a correctly exposed colour transparency, or black and white print, still has the edge over digital imaging.......A bit like vinyl and CD.

4th Mar 2015, 18:27
Same with music, folk are happy with in ear headphones and mp3 quality.

When I was a kid, our 'iPod' was a stack of 78s, and scratchy playback on a windup gramophone. MP3 sounds a heck of a lot better.

And, on the image front, my Android tablet takes better pictures in low light than my Nikon DSLR. The Nikon still beats it in good light, though.

4th Mar 2015, 19:13
Herr Draper's anecdotal figure seems excessive, but when almost every living breathing human over the age of 10 seems to own a smartphone and probably takes 10 photos a day of mostly drivel it could easily be fact. B.D (Before Digital) ;) very few people had cameras and of those, few took photos except on holiday or at a birthday party. How did we survive ?

I think the reason that people accept lower quality is simply because we've become insular, wrapped up in our smartphone/tablet/iPod etc where everything is right there, up close and personal, so the perspective is less and the perception accordingly. Not for the best imo, but that's the way of it.


4th Mar 2015, 20:01
When I was a kid, our 'iPod' was a stack of 78s, and scratchy playback on a windup gramophone. MP3 sounds a heck of a lot better.In the same way that an iphone takes better pictures than a box brownie... it won't compare though to a Sony A900 or whatever passes for half way decent these days.

I hate the over compressed sound of modern music recording. I teach guitar amongst other things so I suppose I have sensitive ears. It's probably not surprising that students are often flabergasted by the sound of a top end acoustic or a decent electric through a good valve amp. They've simply never heard a quality sound at close quarters before. Not their fault but what passes for decent sound quality these days is pretty awful really.

Mad Monk
4th Mar 2015, 20:26
Not just the technical image quality, but the aesthetic quality.
I realise that the latter is somewhat subjective.

Image taking is no longer photography, was it ever ?
When I started with a Brownie 120, we took snapshots.
Over many years of progression of quality I still feel that I take snaps, no matter how long it may take me to achieve what I wish of a shot.
I am not a Professional, many people have said they like what I do, I take snaps with high end gear as I enjoy the flexibility that is gives me. When I wnat control over all aspects, I have it.

The aesthetic quality of my shots is questionable, I am not sure that I can judge.
If you wish to view and offer criticism, some of my snaps may be found at https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/

tony draper
4th Mar 2015, 21:47
Tiz the old monochrome photographs I like, the more sepia the better,I have a considerable collection now stolen from all over the tinternet,mostly local.:)

4th Mar 2015, 22:05
Great pics MM, I especially like the sculptures. Had an old Rollieflex 2 1/4, if it was good enough for Irving Penn, 50's fashion and portrait photographer, it's good enough for me. Had a darkroom too, pure magic developing and printing old school. Cannot get into digital, it feels like cheating. As you say, the artistry is in the taking and not messing around with the image. One of my favourite photographers is Bill Brandt. Moody.

4th Mar 2015, 22:20
As a young schoolboy I fell into serious photography and acquired an Exacta Varex IIA (http://www.thecamerasite.net/01_SLR_Cameras/Pages/exacta.htm) through the professional photographer father of a classmate. During various school trips to Germany I was able to supplement the equipment so I had full macro-photography ability.

I already had access to my father's Rolleiflex Automat 3.5 (http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Rolleiflex_Automat_Model_3), having started with a Brownie 127 (http://www.onetwoseven.org.uk/cameras/kodak/b127.html)and then an Ilford Sportsman (http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ilford_Sportsman_%28original%29).

When I left home for university in 1962 I 'lost' my darkroom and, instead, bought a Voigtlander Vito BL (http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Voigtländer_Vito_B) and stuck to 'snapshots' using slidefilm professionally processed.

After that (1965) I lost interest in photography and sold the Exacta to a workmate who used it to document surviving Spitfires. He still has the camera.

When my son started High School in 1988 he said he needed a camera and I offered him the choice of a new East German Praktica BX20 (http://tinyurl.com/nnhj3bm) camera or a secondhand Pentax ME Super (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_ME_Super) - he chose the ME Super.
I thought it such a nice camera (he won a competition with a photograph published in Amateur Photographer) that I bought one for myself (and then my daughter wanted one, so I bought her one).
I moved up to Super A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Super-A) (two bodies so that I could have alternative lenses available for my new-found hobby of airshow photography).

It was a while before I considered moving to digital photography, and an early Sony DSC-F505 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf505) was fun while it lasted (the Zeiss zoom lens was impressive) - but the electronics died early after water-ingress - by which time 2.1 Mp was already outdated and therefore not worth repairing.

I bought a Kodak DX6490 (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DX6490/D64A.HTM) that I eventually gave to my daughter when her camera was stolen.

With my (by then) arsenal of Pentax lenses (from 16mm fisheye to 1000mm mirror) I naturally progressed to Pentax K100D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K100D) then K100D Super (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K100D#K100D_Super) and now, K200 and K200D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K200D).

I have no immediate intention of further upgrades, but it remains to be seen how long the current bodies last (I am still able to use the ME Super/Super A lenses - except the 1000mm mirror lens as the body fouls the projection on the 'brow' of the camera body.

My current photography activity is mainly record snapshots (I found the airshows were getting repetitive with little new worth recording), and I have acquired a 'reputation' in the village as 'the guy with the camera'.

4th Mar 2015, 22:50
I still use a 1950s' Leica taking mostly monochrome film. It's nearly as old as I am. Takes beautifully clear images and has taught me more about light and film than anything else I have used over the decades. However, I do not have access to a darkroom and processing is a pain in the neck. I also have an early Leica digital for recording point and click stuff. Very rarely use phone camera.

Loose rivets
4th Mar 2015, 23:43
henry (#12) and others, do you notice anything wrong with that picture?

4th Mar 2015, 23:59
Those interested in and in proximity to the Royal Photographic Society in Bath would find a visit enlightening and uplifting - also a bit intimidating for a photographer like myself.

This is not on current display there but is part of their collection.
They go way back but are very contemporary.

Amsterdam 1857 Benjamin Brecknell Turner


Adrian Japp


5th Mar 2015, 00:02
henry (#12) and others, do you notice anything wrong with that picture?
Yes, I spotted that.

5th Mar 2015, 00:36
Some interesting work by the late Leonard Nimoy.


5th Mar 2015, 00:46
This is disturbing:-

5th Mar 2015, 08:26
12"x10" glass plates in a brass and mahogany camera, black focussing cloth over the head, lens stopped down to f/32, exposure counted in seconds whilst removing and replacing the lens cap.

Only way to go.

I was paid one pound a week whilst learning to use that up to date (at the time ) modern equipment.

Orthochromatic emulsion plates, too, so that they could be developed visually in a red light illuminated darkroom. None of your panchromatic nonsense.

Later - Kodak Dye Transfer colour printing. Took a week to produce one print.

5th Mar 2015, 09:12
Vanishing world...there was a time when any town of decent size would have a photographic studio. They turned out pretty good family portraits too.

John Campbell of Paisley Road, Glasgow made this image of Mr and Mrs Neish with their infant son William (who went on to be somewhat notorious in Canada) Taken sometime in the 1890s it was in a bit of a state before I had it restored professionally. The chap I took it to was impressed with the quality, despite the ravages of time. (Mrs Loki's great grandparents, btw)

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k288/loki_021/A5%20Sepia.jpg (http://s91.photobucket.com/user/loki_021/media/A5%20Sepia.jpg.html)

5th Mar 2015, 10:07
do you notice anything wrong with that picture?

I reckon that Henry has photoshopped it.

tony draper
5th Mar 2015, 10:13
My Mum used to take Self Bro Draper and Sister down to Turner's Studio (no not that Turner)on Gateshead High Street for a portrait every few years in our childhood, even the ones of my Sister who came along in the early fifties were hand tinted in colour and no one shall not be posting any of them here.

5th Mar 2015, 11:22
I started with colour slides 55 years ago, and also went into monochrome prints with my own darkroom and enlarger. I couldn't afford the top quality machinery those days, so I operated with couple of Pentax 35mm jobs and a Yashica 635 for 6x6 serious monochrome work. All in the past now, and surprisingly perhaps, I've just been able to sell my darkroom gear for real money rather than throw it in the rubbish heap. Apparently someone still loves the smell of ammonium thiosulphate....

There was a period of about twenty years where I did very little photography, but then I eased back into the digital adventure. These days I use a couple of serious Canon SLRs and a modest brace of suitable lenses, along with a pocket size "travel" Canon when it's impractical to lug the heavy stuff around.

For me - having come through the camera club / exhibition scene - technical perfection (exposure,focus, etc) is a must. I will not submit photos for public viewing which don't measure up to my self imposed standards in this area. Many of my pictures are 'massaged' in some degree by Photoshop. For mine it's little different to what I used to do in the darkroom in earlier days, and I hold that it's quite legitimate to do so.

Overall I'm enjoying the return to serious photography. I find quality photos of aircraft to be the most challenging part of the adventure. Sometimes it's very humbling. Owning and operating the most expensive cameras and the right bits on the front does not immediately guarantee brilliant results. Sometimes my little $350 Canon S120 astonishes with it's sharpness and exposure latitude.

Yes - we've come a long way in photography - technically that is - but I still stand in awe of what 'pioneers' in the field were able to achieve in the early days. Interestingly, monochrome seems to be back again, with quite a lot of serious work being seen in good ol' black and white in recent times.


5th Mar 2015, 14:56
Been a "serious" amateur photographer all of my life. Brownie, Kodak, Paxete, Practica, Pentax, Nikon, Hasselblad film cameras. Archival images are a delight.

I've almost completed digitizing all of my personal and family images. That includes, slides, negatives, and prints. The total is just over 24,000 images. Of that 15,000 are mine. I began the project in 2004.
Currently I use a Canon digital still camera and a Sony HD video camera.
If you apply the lessons you learned with film to digital you can achieve photos that have the same quality as film up to the resolution of the sensor.
The tonal range is more limited and enlargement results in a degradation of the of the image through digital artifacts. But in general, if these drawbacks are taken into account during the image making process, the results can be equally satisfying.

That having been said the biggest problem with digital photography is also one of it's advantages. The immediacy and simplicity of reproduction via digital devices results in a casual approach to both image making and preservation.

Basically people snap anything and everything without concern for quality and then e-mail, text, farcebook , and twitter everything to everyone they have ever met or been in a lift with. The poor blighters receiving these missives take a look and then delete them and the source of these unwanted billet-doux, now secure of their position in history, either does the same or deletes them when the next update comes or they change their, phone, hard drive, iPad, iPod, laptop or computer.

Admittedly there is little or no loss to the human race when this bumpf disappears. But I somehow feel that, one day, we'll regret the loss of the archival nature of non-digital images.

5th Mar 2015, 15:40
Next development - a chip that can project an image directly into your brain?? UNI. Many years ago my Mother mentioned a chap who could project images onto to film with his mind. I thought he was Russian but this thread prompted me to do a search. There was this chap Ted Serois from Chicago who could apparently do it. (I have avoided posting unreliable links).

This was when I was still learning to develop and print neg film. I did actually try it given my interest in such phenomena. Didn't work for me....should've tried harder.

5th Mar 2015, 15:51
As a marketing exercise when I was 'retraining' during a period of unemployment many decades ago, I 'invented' a device which was like a Polaroid print - without a lens.

The image was captured using a sort of mirror (the details were vague) which was held up to 'reflect' the desired scene and then the 'print' was produced by some method that I kept secret (!).

Of course, today we have mobile phones (which were like housebricks back then) incorporating a camera which can capture what is seen on the camera screen (though producing a print is still beyond them AFAIK).

If only I had been able to perfect the idea and patent it I could have been living the life of Gates . . .

5th Mar 2015, 18:02
Pelikal I think you are referring to Ted Serios.
If I may quote from Wicki .
Serios would use what he called a “gizmo,” a tube of paper placed against the camera lens. He said this helped him to focus his mental energy and direct it toward the film. He also used something he didn’t tell anyone about—a tiny tube about one inch long and one-half inch in diameter. This tube had a tiny magnifying lens at one end. In the other end one could insert a piece cut from a standard 35mm slide. Lined up properly, this device projected the image on the cut piece of transparency onto the film of the Polaroid camera. The device was small enough to be concealed in the palm of the hand, so it could be used even when the larger paper “gizmo” wasn’t around to conceal it

QED I think.

Loose rivets
5th Mar 2015, 23:24
do you notice anything wrong with that picture? (#12)
I reckon that Henry has photoshopped it.

Nooooo . . . said in a Jeremy Paxman kind of way.

I love this one. Family I'm too young to have met. Family were photographers.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/Family/Boltonfamily.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/walnaze/media/Family/Boltonfamily.jpg.html)

One I've shown many times. Off c 10" X 8" glass plate. Great Grandmother and two of her three girls.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/Family/BennettGlassPlateHi.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/walnaze/media/Family/BennettGlassPlateHi.jpg.html)

The pub in which they lived in Denton. Contemporary of course.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/Family/TheBowlingGreenDenton.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/walnaze/media/Family/TheBowlingGreenDenton.jpg.html)

One of several old negs I'd had all my life. I'd never seen it displayed in any way before I'd scanned it. Mum with me c 1940

It was taken with an old Kodak concertina, but the size up from my mom's one which I imagine was the smallest. Negs a little bigger on this one made a huge difference to several comparative scans.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/Family/MSBWRBcrop.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/walnaze/media/Family/MSBWRBcrop.jpg.html)

Dad on his Norton.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/Family/Dad5copy.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/walnaze/media/Family/Dad5copy.jpg.html)

5th Mar 2015, 23:36
VE registration issued in Cambridge between September 1928 and February 1934.

946 would seem to be towards late 1933 or early 1934.

5th Mar 2015, 23:46
I'd love to know how you got that info G-CPTN?

5th Mar 2015, 23:50
Car registration letter codes 1900-1972 (http://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/registrations/reg-letters.htm)

Cambridgeshire car registration letter code VE (http://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/registrations/ve.htm)

The information used to be published in the AA Handbook.
As a toddler it was essential reading.

6th Mar 2015, 00:03
MM your work is brilliant. Your modesty is becoming, too.

This is when art and photography coalesce -

→ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9488005754/in/album-72157635028562236/lightbox/) ← (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9488005754/in/album-72157635028562236/lightbox/)
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5524/9488005240_4ec14f09c4_b.jpg By the way, Meadowrun, the OP to this thread said - " At the same time this science evolved as art as well, just as creative and evocative as the finest paintings, sometimes more so."

Many there are, highly revered in the world of art appreciation , who would not agree that photography, even in its finest, most creative and imaginative forms
can be in any sense be put up against, for the purposes of comparison, the technical mastery, the absolute creative brilliance of those men (and to a lesser extent, in numbers, women) who will rank forever as painters gifted so prodigiously that their work will ever be light years away from that of mere copiests.

6th Mar 2015, 00:40
those cavorting ladies without a stitch on , reminds me of
famous joke -

EdZachary!: Ed Zachary Joke (http://www.edzachary.com/2007/03/ed-zachary-joke.html)

maybe they did course number nine at the TAFE -

FINE ARTS DIVISION 1. Macrame your way to self-awareness 2. Needlecraft for Junkies 3. Cuticle Craft 4. Memorable Gifts for the Senile 5. How to Bonsai Your Pet 6. Creative Writing With Sticks 7. Body Painting for the Elderly 8. Tap Dance Your Way to Social Ridicule 9. Belly Dancing for the Obese 10. Nude Sketching (not be confused with sketching in the nude)

6th Mar 2015, 10:43

Yes indeed. The never-ending argument. The two sides are polarized.

heh, heh, heh.

Loose rivets
6th Mar 2015, 15:09
Thanks, G-C.

I ran the link but BR seems to end in 33, so I must be doing something wrong. I owned Wolseley BRT 191 which was later I believe. This pictures has no place on a photography thread, but it's one of only two or three.

I sold the illuminated badge on e-thingy a while back. Didn't fetch much even with the working bulb I purchased in 1958. Bloke never did send me a promised photo of his car. Wish I'd kept it.


I liked the long boot extension on this model. The smaller cars always seem a bit slab backed.


tony draper
6th Mar 2015, 16:08
This is a colour photograph taken at the turn of the century,was a fascinating documentary on a couple of years ago about some rich French Cove back end of the 1800s and early 1900s hired a load of photographers to travel the world recording life, lots in black and white but quite a lot using the colour system they had devised,forget its name now,amazing quality colour images for the time. :)
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a194/Deaddogbay/Deaddogbay002/Lowestoft_zpsnamg17yd.jpg (http://s11.photobucket.com/user/Deaddogbay/media/Deaddogbay002/Lowestoft_zpsnamg17yd.jpg.html)

6th Mar 2015, 17:02
BRT registration was issued by East Sussex from January 1936 to August 1937.

Suffolk (East) car registration letter code RT (http://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/registrations/rt.htm)

6th Mar 2015, 17:16
many decades ago, I 'invented' a deviceAh, G-CPTN you were the so and so who got all the schoolboys yearning for one of these devices...... (https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/atomictoys/xraysp1.jpg)

tony draper
6th Mar 2015, 21:19
Yer that was hand colour tinting,still being used in the fifties.

6th Mar 2015, 21:39
colour tinting was the go throughout Australia in the 20s and 30s, too.
My dear old auntie Maudie (Warrener) was so employed in one of the Sydney
studios of Frank Hurley (of Antarctic and PNG fame).

(She it was who gave me a signed ornate menu made for the dinner
given in the Australia Hotel in Sydney in 1920 in honour of Ross and Keith Smith
and Bennett and Shiers the engineers in the Vimy. All their sigs .. . plus James
Warrener (Auntie Maudie's husband) who was with THE SUN newspaper who
hosted the reception . . are appended)

There was brilliant NZ made spoof , with Sam Neil, as himself, among other notables playing in it,
that purported to tell the story of an obscure film maker Angus McKenzie ???
who made the first colour cine films ever, a cache of which were lost in some over grown forest and
so slipped into the mists of time. Later to be discovered by a person that the Sam Neil praised to the hilt.
McKenzie was shown filming in the Spanish civil war in 1938 .
He left the camera running on its tripod, to race round the front to try to help
a man who had just been hit by rifle fire. McKenzie bent down to render aid and in so doing
copped a fatal bullet. If you could swallow it. .. he filmed his own demise.
The "doco" was released in NZ cinemas on the 1st of April 1990 (or thereabouts)

Loose rivets
6th Mar 2015, 22:29
Mr D. That is an utterly beautiful picture. Water tower atop the hill?

G-CTPN. Thanks. That seems about right. I put a con-rod through the side of that engine and spent some time hoping to get it working again. I even painted the walls of the local garage's bog to get them to put in the replacement engine I'd acquired. I never could figure out why they were all laughing. Part of learning about human nature I suppose.

henry. Just you, me and G-C then? :p

tony draper
6th Mar 2015, 22:39
I think the photo is of somewhere in Lowestoft Mr Rivets,I had a link to the photographs but lost it long ago,amazing photography,cant remember the name of the Rich French bloke now.:(
Aha! I knew we had spoken of this before so using proon search rather that google one rediscovered the blokes name, Albert Kahn
Here is a link to a page of Autochrome photographs.

Loose rivets
6th Mar 2015, 23:11
Gosh. Just look deep into Mr D's link at this:

The spiral staircase, and the buttresses in the distance. Never-ending waste of mankind's violence.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=autochromes+albert+kahn&biw=1920&bih=946&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hS36VMecA-Kr7Aatp4CoBg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&dpr=1#imgdii=_&imgrc=H6VEp4AKCRjTEM%253A%3Bep3QCyga1s9VQM%3Bhttp%253A%252F% 252Fpress.princeton.edu%252Fokuefuna%252Fdawn%252Fcity.png%3 Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fpress.princeton.edu%252Ftitles%252F8718. html%3B637%3B475

6th Mar 2015, 23:15
I think the photo is of somewhere in Lowestoft
That's what the caption says.
Lighthouse Score today:- https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.486984,1.757595,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1st6NuR9eDDlDCBfw4hkQnrw!2e0

cant remember the name of the Rich French bloke now
The Wonderful World of Albert Kahn (http://www.albertkahn.co.uk/about.html)

Autochrome Lumičre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autochrome_Lumičre)