B&W – Your link to the Past (and Future?)

[Brian Schmidt]

Hello.

It used to be that I would look at an old photograph and see old people. Not old people in the respect of the elderly, but would see those in the photograph as a caricature of sorts. A stereotypical guy from the ‘old days’ I guess.

A half year ago I came across a collection of things from a long deceased distant relative who was born in 1889 and lived until 1967. He was a photo guy. One photograph tells of how he set up his camera as his wife looked back impatiently from the porch swing, and then smiled as he tripped the lever. Another picture shows that he propped the camera up on a tree with the auto-time to get a picture of him and his friends at the river. Yet another shows how his wife got her hands on the camera, set it up and shouted his name, snapping the photo the instant his head turned.

After starting in film photography I realized that the old photographs and my photographs were surprisingly similar. The old ones are just like my pictures, but with different people in them! I see people I know, places I know, myself and my things in photographs that came to be in the same manner as those a hundred years ago. The same level of complexity, the many backstories, hours spent in a stack being shuffled one to the next in some long-gone mysterious hands just as they are in mine today. (to be the mysterious hands of the future?)

Do any of you have thoughts on this? I realize there are many older (and many not-that-much-older) people here who grew up around B&W. For the folks who grew up nearly always with color, do you feel the same?

It's more of a conversation starter than a question... Lets see where it goes!

Have a good day,

Brian

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Judging from an article I recently read there is renewed interest in older technology. Sales of simple cell phones that only allow the user to make and receive calls are up. Some people have lost interest in phones that are cameras, computers and personal assistants. Sales of vinyl records, turntables and tube amplifiers are up 15%. are up. Discontinued films are being marketed again. So there appears hope that film will continue into the near future.

 

[jvo]

photography as a genetic trait?

jvo

 

[btaylor]

Color, b&w, I guess there is a time period demarcation for me. I saw color creeping into my family's photos in the '60s apart from a bit of Kodachrome starting in the late '40s. It all went to color by the '70s except for mine, I was the one tinkering in the closet darkroom making b&w enlargements. Color or b&w, the clothes and hairstyles always give away the time period!

 

[Arklatexian]

Hello.

It used to be that I would look at an old photograph and see old people. Not old people in the respect of the elderly, but would see those in the photograph as a caricature of sorts. A stereotypical guy from the ‘old days’ I guess.

A half year ago I came across a collection of things from a long deceased distant relative who was born in 1889 and lived until 1967. He was a photo guy. One photograph tells of how he set up his camera as his wife looked back impatiently from the porch swing, and then smiled as he tripped the lever. Another picture shows that he propped the camera up on a tree with the auto-time to get a picture of him and his friends at the river. Yet another shows how his wife got her hands on the camera, set it up and shouted his name, snapping the photo the instant his head turned.

After starting in film photography I realized that the old photographs and my photographs were surprisingly similar. The old ones are just like my pictures, but with different people in them! I see people I know, places I know, myself and my things in photographs that came to be in the same manner as those a hundred years ago. The same level of complexity, the many backstories, hours spent in a stack being shuffled one to the next in some long-gone mysterious hands just as they are in mine today. (to be the mysterious hands of the future?)

Do any of you have thoughts on this? I realize there are many older (and many not-that-much-older) people here who grew up around B&W. For the folks who grew up nearly always with color, do you feel the same?

It's more of a conversation starter than a question... Lets see where it goes!

Have a good day,

Brian

Hello.

It used to be that I would look at an old photograph and see old people. Not old people in the respect of the elderly, but would see those in the photograph as a caricature of sorts. A stereotypical guy from the ‘old days’ I guess.

A half year ago I came across a collection of things from a long deceased distant relative who was born in 1889 and lived until 1967. He was a photo guy. One photograph tells of how he set up his camera as his wife looked back impatiently from the porch swing, and then smiled as he tripped the lever. Another picture shows that he propped the camera up on a tree with the auto-time to get a picture of him and his friends at the river. Yet another shows how his wife got her hands on the camera, set it up and shouted his name, snapping the photo the instant his head turned.

After starting in film photography I realized that the old photographs and my photographs were surprisingly similar. The old ones are just like my pictures, but with different people in them! I see people I know, places I know, myself and my things in photographs that came to be in the same manner as those a hundred years ago. The same level of complexity, the many backstories, hours spent in a stack being shuffled one to the next in some long-gone mysterious hands just as they are in mine today. (to be the mysterious hands of the future?)

Do any of you have thoughts on this? I realize there are many older (and many not-that-much-older) people here who grew up around B&W. For the folks who grew up nearly always with color, do you feel the same?

It's more of a conversation starter than a question... Lets see where it goes!

Have a good day,

Brian

In almost 86 years, I have come to the conclusion that the only difference between people of today and of 1000 years ago is that people today are more (though maybe not better) informed. They were/are interested in where they live, in their family and friends, etc. Sounds pretty normal to me......Regards!

 

[Dali]

In almost 86 years, I have come to the conclusion that the only difference between people of today and of 1000 years ago is that people today are more (though maybe not better) informed. They were/are interested in where they live, in their family and friends, etc. Sounds pretty normal to me......Regards!

1000 years ago, people were certainly happier.

 

[Daniela]

Beautiful story, Brian.
I grew up with color family pictures only, but I've had a similar experience with a photograph I was given when my grandmother died. It's a sepia-toned portrait of a woman. Nobody is really sure of who she was, but the picture sparked an interesting conversation in my family. See, I'm the only one with very curly hair in my family. While this woman's hairdo is pretty tightly done, you can see hints of curly hair. Everyone commented that maybe that's where the curly hair gene comes from . I keep the picture with me and I treasure it since I feel a personal connection to it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't think it is just BW. I have seen modern BW photography with digital cameras and it doesn't have retro look or feel of connection with older time.
It is withing the gear and how you have to operate it and it is within media. I took family pictures with camera from circa 1931 and printed in the darkroom from it on RC paper. Family portraits gives connection feel with family portraits from the past. It feels different from BW family pictures taken on film with more modern gear or digitally.
Also, I'm getting periodically comments what my street pictures have retro feel in them. I think it is due to two factors. I do it on film and print in the darkroom and I'm influenced by old photographers who did it on film and paper. I think, film and gear were dictating then and now, how image would be taken. And not just technically.

 

[Brian Schmidt]

Some people have lost interest in phones that are cameras, computers and personal assistants.

I talk to plenty of people around campus. Seldom do I speak to anybody who doesn't think electronics come with great vice. They still have them but speak of how they want to get rid of them, they waste too much time with them, etc. I doubt they will ever really go away but I do think more people will move to flip phones. I know a guy who finds neat little places around campus that are in plain sight but everybody walks right by them while on their phone. He posts pictures of such places and everybody asks where it was. "You walk right by it!" he often replies. Hopefully such conversation will wake people up to their surroundings. Smell the roses!

In almost 86 years, I have come to the conclusion that the only difference between people of today and of 1000 years ago is that people today are more (though maybe not better) informed. They were/are interested in where they live, in their family and friends, etc. Sounds pretty normal to me......Regards!

Would it sound reasonable to say that the perceived differences are due to older people covering up the bad pieces of their lives? I would imagine they wouldn't talk about things like immaturity they dealt with, bullies, bad experiences, etc. because it isn't a fun subject. E.G., how people often think people didn't use to steal anything ever, or nobody cheated on their spouse, or things used to taste so much better?

Beautiful story, Brian.
...I've had a similar experience with a photograph I was given when my grandmother died. It's a sepia-toned portrait of a woman. Nobody is really sure of who she was, but the picture sparked an interesting conversation in my family. I'm the only one with very curly hair in my family...you can see hints of curly hair... I keep the picture with me and I treasure it since I feel a personal connection to it.

That is like how I feel about the box of stuff. It covers the guy's life, really, from letters and photographs from he was my age to when he was interviewed by the paper for being, well, a very interesting old man, to when his cousin stuck his obituary in with it. Looking it over, he wasn't one to sit and do nothing. He was a craftsman, mechanic, and photographer and I relate to that very well. He was very outspoken, and as he said, he "had more fun on accident than most people have on purpose". As odd as it may seem I feel finding that stuff was very motivational, life changing even. I always feared that as I would get old I would be forced to burn out, but he's helped me to see that doesn't have to be the case. All this from a guy I'll never meet.

...I have seen modern BW photography with digital cameras and it doesn't have retro look or feel of connection with older time...
Family portraits [with old tech] gives connection feel with family portraits from the past. ...my street pictures have retro feel in them. I think it is due to two factors. I do it on film and print in the darkroom and I'm influenced by old photographers who did it on film and paper. I think, film and gear were dictating then and now, how image would be taken. And not just technically.

I wonder what the exact differences are. I can look at modern wet plates and it is easy to tell they are new, even if people are in accurate costume. I just haven't put my finger on it. Could it be the way people act around a camera? Maybe people looked at the cameras as an unusual object years ago and they are seen today as something that is looking back. Or people are better nourished now so our bodies grow to be what they are trying to do. One thing I am sure of is that people keep their baby-faces much longer and don't exercise much.

Good thoughts, everybody.

Brian

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... I realized that the old photographs and my photographs were surprisingly similar.
...

You are fortunate to have had a photographer in your family. My case is different: all the old photos are of my once large and extended family in Hungary. Aside from the people, in the photo it is only the incidental street, building, or park that gets my attention. My photos are totally different: while I can be artistic and often am, many of my photos are made with the thought of archiving the present landscape or cityscape which I know will change.

 

[Cholentpot]

1000 years ago, people were certainly happier.

'That must be the king.'

'How do you know?'

'He doesn't have s*** all over 'em.'

 

[MattKing]

1000 years ago, people were certainly happier.

Until they died really young.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I wonder what the exact differences are. I can look at modern wet plates and it is easy to tell they are new, even if people are in accurate costume. I just haven't put my finger on it. Could it be the way people act around a camera? Maybe people looked at the cameras as an unusual object years ago and they are seen today as something that is looking back. Or people are better nourished now so our bodies grow to be what they are trying to do. One thing I am sure of is that people keep their baby-faces much longer and don't exercise much.

Where is no "exact difference" in the feel. It is how you feel it or can't feel it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have always disliked the ducks in a line photograph:

• Here we are lined up at Virginia Beach
• Here we are lined up at Skyline Drive
• Here we are lined up at Disneyland

The order of the people, the clothes and the ages change, but all the photographs are so damn boring!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
The order of the people, the clothes and the ages change, but all the photographs are so damn boring!

Not to derail the thread, but these guys did something interesting:

http://www.fiveyearphotos.com/

 

[Arklatexian]

I have always disliked the ducks in a line photograph:

• Here we are lined up at Virginia Beach
• Here we are lined up at Skyline Drive
• Here we are lined up at Disneyland

The order of the people, the clothes and the ages change, but all the photographs are so damn boring!

Sirius Glass, what is even worse than the above is:"Here is our car at the Golden Gate Bridge" (big car/hardly any of the bridge), "here is our car at Yellowstone" (big car/a little steam from Old Faithful or maybe big car and small dots that might be bears). Haven't we all been guilty?.......Regards!

 

[BrianShaw]

'That must be the king.'

'How do you know?'

'He doesn't have s*** all over 'em.'

I was going to say something similar, but in a very different way. But your way of expressing that thought seems more clear.

 

[Cholentpot]

I was going to say something similar, but in a very different way. But your way of expressing that thought seems more clear.

Monty Python.

 

[Wallendo]

One of my guilty pleasures is shooting Arista EDU 100 (Fomapan 100). It's grain structure and tonality give the photos a nostalgic look, which makes modern images blend in with older images.
When I was in my teens (1970's), a read multiple books by experts talking about how bad it was to take a picture of family members or friends standing in front of interesting sites - what is the point of interest, Aunt Mary or the Tower Bridge. In retrospect, I wish I hadn't listened to those idiots and would have taken exactly those type of images, in addition to more artistic images. The actual images may not be as interesting, but it documents family history: We were here on this date. After all, there are thousands of images of the Eiffel Tower made by much better photographers than me, but my favorite is one of my daughter posing in front of it.

 

[removed account4]

Until they died really young.

!

 

[Vaughn]

I have been surrounded by B&W photographs for 62 years...what's this 'color' stuff?

 

[Brian Schmidt]

I've thought about it some more and came partially to these conclusions...
-Orthochromatic film tends to give chalky white faces. Representation of colors is thrown off creating an odd environment.
-People looked at the camera more curiously or didn't feel the need to pose in a special way for it. It seems, even for old portrait studio pictures, that the subject stares off into space without expression. Today most photos show the subject fixated on some spectacle whether it be the camera or otherwise. Then there are also what we see as imperfections. Hair that hasn't been cut (or washed) for a while is a big one.
-Very minute details such as types of block used to construct a wall, jewelry worn, flooring, outlets and power lines, etc. can tip a person off. Sometimes I see such a photograph where somebody is wearing their prescription glasses or tennis shoes. Is much anything new made out of wood? It seems corrugated steel has taken its place. Bridges sure aren't wood. Big buildings aren't either.
-Subjects aren't comfortable in period-correct clothing. It shows and they seem rigid.

Sirius Glass, what is even worse than the above is:"Here is our car at the Golden Gate Bridge" (big car/hardly any of the bridge), "here is our car at Yellowstone" (big car/a little steam from Old Faithful or maybe big car and small dots that might be bears). Haven't we all been guilty?.......Regards!

Pictures of everybody but mom. Wonder who took the picture?

When I was in my teens (1970's), a read multiple books by experts talking about how bad it was to take a picture of family members or friends standing in front of interesting sites... In retrospect, I wish I hadn't listened to those idiots and would have taken exactly those type of images...

They probably weren't writing the book with fun in mind, I would assume. In front of the sign at the college I go to the grass is always dead this time of year. People come for orientation and campus visits and that's the standard place to have a photo taken before the skitter back off to the country. It's always fun to slip behind the sign and poke my head around the corner as the photo is taken.

Brian

 

[Cholentpot]

One of my guilty pleasures is shooting Arista EDU 100 (Fomapan 100). It's grain structure and tonality give the photos a nostalgic look, which makes modern images blend in with older images.
When I was in my teens (1970's), a read multiple books by experts talking about how bad it was to take a picture of family members or friends standing in front of interesting sites - what is the point of interest, Aunt Mary or the Tower Bridge. In retrospect, I wish I hadn't listened to those idiots and would have taken exactly those type of images, in addition to more artistic images. The actual images may not be as interesting, but it documents family history: We were here on this date. After all, there are thousands of images of the Eiffel Tower made by much better photographers than me, but my favorite is one of my daughter posing in front of it.

Funny that is. I was given a piece of advice by an older kid when I started. Always put someone in the photo or it's gonna be boring.

It's worked out for me...

 

[blockend]

I've thought about it some more and came partially to these conclusions...

One of the biggest differences between now and any previous era is the number of overweight people. One group hoaxed a Thunderbird picture - a large flighted dinosaur believed seen during the American civil war. Although the setting, clothes, photography and prop were perfect, it was quickly debunked by the number of well fed individuals depicted. At the time most people looked half starved, Even my street photos from the 1970s show a much smaller number of fat people.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

One of the biggest differences between now and any previous era is the number of overweight people. ...

They're taller, too, I believe. Teenagers I see are often over 6'.

I was once inside a British sailing ship from the 1800's - absolutely no way anyone over about 5'6" could stand up fully inside it.