WW2 photos

[Jonzjob]

Sit back, scroll down and enjoy..

http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/2012/ ... dachromes/

 

[Digit]

I liked the 5 X 4s, reasonably 'handy' and superb reproduction, much better than 35mm.

Roy.

 

[petermillard]

Fascinating. Kodachrome was famously (notoriously) only commercially available in 35mm during my photographic career (which combined with the desperately slow turnaround times effectively killed it as an option for me) and I had no idea it had been previously made in larger formats.

Good stuff!

Pete

 

[Paul Chapman]

Lovely pictures. It was a sad day when they stopped making Kodachrome

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Digit]

Generally I found Kodak colour films too 'warm', Ilford for me.

Roy.

 

[Jonzjob]

Just goes to show Roy that you can please all of the people all of the time, some of the people some of the time, but you just can't please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time :?

Sumfin like that anyway? :mrgreen:

They look good to me mate!

Your Ilford? Was it the black and white film perchance :mrgreen: :mrgreen: I used to favour the Ilford 400 stepped up to 1600 with Microdot developer. Great for folk clubs sans flash!!

 

[gus3049]

Thanks for posting that John. Great photos and how 'real' the images seem. I know all the arguments about digital but no matter how sharp and clear there just seems to be something missing.

A bit like (he said, ready to duck) digital versus analogue music.

I guess I'm just an analogue 'uman bean'

 

[Digit]

Pan F when ever possible and Ilfachrome colour in 35mm and FP3 in 5 X 4.
In my late teens, early 20s, there was a shop on the Edgeware Road that sold ex RAF lenses plus the sort of lenses that fitted on a lens board for bellows cameras
As an apprentice I started in the aircraft jig shop, which eventually closed. The mangement wanted to transfer me to the tool room but would not pay the TR rate for my age, so the union said no.
I spent 18 months on full pay doing whatever I wanted, and I made a 5 X 4. Mahogany case, aluminium lens board, double extension rack, all brass fittings and I bought the plate back from the ex RAF stockist.
35 mm is great, but the definition on the larger formats is vastly better.

Roy.

 

[RogerP]

Brilliant! Thanks for posting. Mainly they are from the year I was born (1942).

 

[Chems]

Thanks for the share, Jon, beautiful to look at.

How come photos from 1940's look better than todays digitals? That can't be right. I love these older photos. I don't know if you saw it a few months back but they published a few from the Gemini program.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/ ... /?pid=2860

 

[Jonzjob]

I did get quite a nice on in the garden a couple of daze back. Facing east with our circis tree framed quite well.

I quite like it! I was fascinated the way that the rainbow has kept all the lighter sky inside it?

 

[Kalimna]

Absolutely stunning WW2 photo's - wonderful definition, but to my eyes (and I like the effect, whereas I know some dont) they look not too dissimilar to HDR digital images.
I know it's bizarre, but I always find it odd to see WW2 in colour - must be an age thing And whereas larger formats may give much 'better' photo's than 35mm, they are also much, much more expensive to take (film, camera costs) and to develop than 35mm, and therefore beyond the reach of most amateurs.

Jonzjob - nice rainbow, and the effect you mention regarding the lighter sky is a phenomenon of all rainbows and a direct result of the way they are produced (which itself is a lot more complex than at first sight). Basically, the dark/light banding is because of lightwave interference (I forget the technical term) giving excessive peaks and troughs in the light amplitude - much like the interference pattern of waves on water. Brain Cox is much better at explaining these things!

Adam

 

[JakeS]

I know it's bizarre, but I always find it odd to see WW2 in colour - must be an age thing

I find it bizarre (at the age of 31) to see vivid, saturated colours... I'm used to seeing WWII through the filter of Shep Paine and his ilk, where 'everything covered in dust' is the order of the day!

 

[Jonzjob]

They are obviously not posed are they. No oil, muck or rubbish and the ladies are all nice a smartly turned out.

But what ever, you just can't knock the quality can you..

I rate them very highly.