As I recall, there wasn't much air conditioning, either. As a boy, I remember some businesses like the ones shown in the photos displayed signs saying "Air Conditioned Inside" - but few people had it at home.The best part about that entire article is that there wasn't an electronic screen anywhere. No computers, no smartphones, no tv's... nothing. Just simple.
I was born in the wrong era.
As I recall, there wasn't much air conditioning, either. As a boy, I remember some businesses like the ones shown in the photos displayed signs saying "Air Conditioned Inside" - but few people had it at home.
I really enjoyed the article and amazed at the detail in the photos. A link in the article takes you a website with the full 150 images shot by Charles Custer. The film used was not medium format but probably Super XX sheet film. His obit says that they shot the pictures and then developed overnight and delivered 5x7 prints the next day. The film edge has two closely spaced V notches so it probably was Super XX but could be Royal Pan 4141 with a ISO of 400.
I remember going to the movies which were air conditioned. We only had a fan at home until much later. You' open a window at one end of the apartment (in NYC), close the rest. Then turn on an exhaust fan in a window at the other end of the apartment to draw the air through the house. Of course, you were only pulling in hot, humid NYC air. But at least help evaporate the perspiration off of you. Boy those movies were a pleasure. You'd go for 25 cents and see two full length feature, 5 cartoons, a couple of shorts. Then go home again to sweat.As I recall, there wasn't much air conditioning, either. As a boy, I remember some businesses like the ones shown in the photos displayed signs saying "Air Conditioned Inside" - but few people had it at home.
I think the content is more important than the reproduction qualities.I find the contents of the photos wonderful. I'm grateful for the work done in bringing them to our attention.
Is anyone else bothered by the post-processing - how the photos are "re-developed"?
I would love to see some of them printed more traditionally.
A valid point, Alan and what it has made me wonder about, is if these were taken today by almost anyone except the few who still use film as a recording medium would there be anything left to see in 70 yrs + from now?I think the content is more important than the reproduction qualities.
Well, photo books are still being printed. The NY Times has a photo essay section that covers many things. I'm sure they will maintain their files. Other publications as well. After all, there's no assurance that films, prints and negatives will be saved. They get lost and thrown out often by heirs who have no reason to save them.A valid point, Alan and what it has made me wonder about, is if these were taken today by almost anyone except the few who still use film as a recording medium would there be anything left to see in 70 yrs + from now?
pentaxuser
Thanks posting this David. I very much enjoyed the photos. The prose however...was really disappointing...on several levels.
RIP Mr. Custer.
I find the contents of the photos wonderful. I'm grateful for the work done in bringing them to our attention.
Is anyone else bothered by the post-processing - how the photos are "re-developed"?
I would love to see some of them printed more traditionally.[/QUO
Why is the clarity of those images such a problem ? Prefer to see something Custer and his customers didn't see...or want ?
It wold be nice to see some 16x20 or larger prints from these 5x7 negatives printed in a darkroom rather than a digital reproduction
I won't disagree.I think the content is more important than the reproduction qualities.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?