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

[Vaughn]

I have a copy of the crew manifest for a ship my father was on to and from New Zealand as a Merchant Marine cadet during WWII. They were delivering US Marines to the Pacific Theater. Returning to San Francisco on Feb 7, 1943 by the way of Fiji, on the manifest, my Dad, at 20 yrs old, 6'3" and 220 pounds was with tallest and heaviest crewmen on board. Not the youngest. Another cadet was 19. There was an Irish crewman who was 18 and had already spent two years at sea. He was also the smallest at 5'4" and 123 pounds, but I doubt my dad would mess with him.

PS. The ship was the SS Lurline...a luxury liner built in the 30's for the West Coast to Hawaii/Australia run. Pretty sweet and faster than submarines. My dad was incredibly lucky. Most of the cadets in his class were serving (freezing) on the North Alantic run -- and this was at the height of the action there. My dad's class (1944) from the Merchant Marine Academy lost the greatest number of cadets of any year's class during the war.

Photo: My parents, probably soon after their wedding at the Little Church Around the Corner, NYC, and after dad's graduation from the Merchant Marine Academy in 1944 (he is wearing his MMA ring). My dad almost lived long enough for them to celebrate their 70th anniversary.

 

[Halford]

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.

Brian would it be very rude to ask your age bracket?

I'm curious because as I trundle into my 40s I find myself reflecting on how my perspective changes with creeping middle age. My politics haven't changed in the way some older people predicted they would when I was young, but I do find myself seeing time, and human generations and institutions with a different lens.

I recently attended my mom's 70th birthday celebrations, and I took the time to do some video interviews with older relatives, and talk about how our family history fitted in with my country-of-origin's history (I'm South African, though living now in the Netherlands), and it has really struck me that as I get older, time has kind of telescoped. When you are 20, 100 years seems an amazingly long time. When 50 is on your radar, it really doesn't any more. When we were 20, of course, 50 was pretty old. Now it's pretty much my peer group -- and we're still young :-D

So the difference when I look at the old portraits of my grandfathers taken in the 1920s and 1930s, for example, well, that doesn't feel as long ago as it did when I was a teenager -- because even though it really is longer ago now, those time spans and the lives in them seem in a way much more intimate and accessible to me as I get older and the span of my life becomes a bigger proportion of the time involved.

As for the colour / B&W thing, nothing looks older than a 50-year-old colour photo. (Even though I'm in a very 'colour work' phase at the moment I do know they can't be expected to outlast B&W prints. I just don't care that much)

Sorry for the kind of pointless rambling.

 

[Brian Schmidt]

Brian would it be very rude to ask your age bracket?

I'm curious because as I trundle into my 40s I find myself reflecting on how my perspective changes with creeping middle age. My politics haven't changed in the way some older people predicted they would when I was young, but I do find myself seeing time, and human generations and institutions with a different lens.
...
So the difference when I look at the old portraits of my grandfathers taken in the 1920s and 1930s, for example, well, that doesn't feel as long ago as it did when I was a teenager -- because even though it really is longer ago now, those time spans and the lives in them seem in a way much more intimate and accessible to me as I get older and the span of my life becomes a bigger proportion of the time involved.
...
Sorry for the kind of pointless rambling.

Hello.

I'm in my early 20's. It's a good point to make of the longer life experience making a big difference. I have only really seen a few fads/phases. I suppose as you see many styles and ways to dress and photograph it would be easier to understand those that aren't modern.

Let me tell you, there's no pointless rambling if it has to do with the topic. I'm glad you posted. I hadn't thought of perception changing in that way before.

Have a good day,

Brian

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I am taking landscape photographs I wait until I can take the photograph without anyone in the composition. Why? Because the clothes that people are wearing date the photograph.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

When I am taking landscape photographs I wait until I can take the photograph without anyone in the composition. Why? Because the clothes that people are wearing date the photograph.

Why don't you just ask them to get naked?

 

[TheRook]

When I am taking landscape photographs I wait until I can take the photograph without anyone in the composition. Why? Because the clothes that people are wearing date the photograph.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Imagine a landscape photograph from the 1930's with people in it... let's say, at a picnic. In such case, I think the inclusion of the people actually adds interest to the scene, especially if their period clothing is clearly displayed and recognizable as such. It says something about the landscape - how it appeared then, and its relationship to people of that period.

 

[Vaughn]

Why don't you just ask them to get naked?

Because then they'll think it is the 60s/70s!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Because then they'll think it is the 60s/70s!

Only if they're smoking pot and have colorful flowers painted all over their bodies.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Imagine a landscape photograph from the 1930's with people in it... let's say, at a picnic. In such case, I think the inclusion of the people actually adds interest to the scene, especially if their period clothing is clearly displayed and recognizable as such. It says something about the landscape - how it appeared then, and its relationship to people of that period.

If I had period costumes that would be be good.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why don't you just ask them to get naked?

I would only have then do that if they had good figures.

 

[Brian Schmidt]

When I am taking landscape photographs I wait until I can take the photograph without anyone in the composition. Why? Because the clothes that people are wearing date the photograph.

It seems to be awfully hard to find a place that is really untouched these days. I can even go out in the hills but you can see a cell phone tower, wind generator, etc. I'd hate to be the person who moved out to the country for the serenity just to see those wind generators blinking to the airplanes. Then there's the loads of garbage everywhere.
Another important thing to note is how well kept things are as compared to the past. Any place that isn't in perfect shape is treated like a disaster. Many old pictures have a lot of uncut grass, peeling paint and crooked structures in them.
Here's a good example. Start around 8:25. The uncut grass is mostly what I speak of. I figure it must have been considered normal at that time as I feel inclusion of the uncut grass didn't intend to symbolize anything. Though the beginning might be neat to see for the portrait studio bit:

Have a good day,
Brian

 

[TheRook]

If I had period costumes that would be be good.

I get the impression you are not very fond of today's clothing style. At least not in conjunction with landscape photography.
Well, I suppose I feel the same to some extent. And especially the look of modern vehicles - they usually ruin landscape photos.

 

[Helios 1984]

1000 years ago, people were certainly happier.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. A 1000 ago, there was feudal systems all over the place, folks were living in servitude and fear, working the fields for cruel lords, justice was sadistic and arbitrary, decease was rampant and you never knew when Viking raiders would strike.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I am taking landscape photographs I wait until I can take the photograph without anyone in the composition. Why? Because the clothes that people are wearing date the photograph.

It seems to be awfully hard to find a place that is really untouched these days. I can even go out in the hills but you can see a cell phone tower, wind generator, etc. I'd hate to be the person who moved out to the country for the serenity just to see those wind generators blinking to the airplanes. Then there's the loads of garbage everywhere.
Another important thing to note is how well kept things are as compared to the past. Any place that isn't in perfect shape is treated like a disaster. Many old pictures have a lot of uncut grass, peeling paint and crooked structures in them.
Here's a good example. Start around 8:25. The uncut grass is mostly what I speak of. I figure it must have been considered normal at that time as I feel inclusion of the uncut grass didn't intend to symbolize anything. Though the beginning might be neat to see for the portrait studio bit:

Have a good day,
Brian

It requires a lot of patience.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I am taking landscape photographs I wait until I can take the photograph without anyone in the composition. Why? Because the clothes that people are wearing date the photograph.

I get the impression you are not very fond of today's clothing style. At least not in conjunction with landscape photography.
Well, I suppose I feel the same to some extent. And especially the look of modern vehicles - they usually ruin landscape photos.

It has nothing to do with today's fashion. Any people or vehicles date the photograph. I prefer "timeless" photographs.