Astonishing!

[Keith]

These are taken with "old gear", remember what they had............

These were shot in 1942. Consider the primitive nature of the gear:

* No strobes
* No soft boxes
* No light meter
* No auto focus
* No chimping for immediate feedback
* No histogram
* No blinkies warning of blown highlights
* No custom white balance

Using a 4x5 camera (Probably a Graflex Speed Graphic)

* Image appears upside down and reversed on ground-glass focusing screen
* Camera weighed up to 10 lbs. and is at least 15 times bulkier than an SLR
* Shooting 24 frames requires a dozen film holders with dark slides -- enough to fill a shoulder bag. To shoot a hundred frames would require a suitcase full of film holders.
* Tripod probably weighed at least as much as the camera
* Kodachrome ASA (now ISO) speed of 25 (though most 4x5 work over the decades was shot on Ektachrome, not Kodachrome)


pavel_kosenko: 4x5 Kodachromes

 

[Jim Craik]

Keith,

Those truly are incredable, it almost like you have gone back in time and are standing right there.

A assumed that these were carefully posed, with a long exposure time, but that great shot of the tank hitting the water...........

Fabulous, I would love to see more of those.

 

[Mark]

HOLY SH1T!

Thanks for posting those Keith.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Great photos Keith, thanks for posting. Shows what a huge role women had in the war effort.

 

[Keith]

Personally, I also believe it aptly illustrates what a great nation can achieve when they pull together in a righteous cause to counter a common threat.

Posed, possibly but you get the sense that these people believed strongly in what they were doing.

We could all (including the UK) do with a bit of a reality check in 2012 along the same lines.

Fabulous warmth in 'analogue' film.

These came from Russia of all places - possibly a Communist example of US 'propaganda'. Interestingly, you could swap national symbols and vehicle types and you could be looking at bright young Russians, except of course, the Yanks seem , er, just so well fed!

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

I did some of this kind of photography decades ago when I was doing commercial work, before I left photography in favor of medicine. We used color negative film at that time, and some Ektachrome, I think. Most of our 4x5 work was studio, in B/W. No film looks like Kodachrome- it was, I think, the first transparency emulsion and I'll bet some folks still think it was the best one. It wasn't fast, but the color saturation and fine grain were terrific. I never used large format K-Chrome, but I did use it in 35mm cameras, and liked it a lot. Ektachrome was more forgiving of exposure errors, though, and you could get it in an emulsion balanced for incandescent light, from what I recall.

Commercial photographers are just as good these days, but the lag that we used to have from the time you made the exposure until you saw the image is gone now- you see it instantly. With all that, I wonder why photos made back in the day are just as good, if not better than what you see nowadays in advertising and commercial work.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Keith, Thanks! I'm surprised that they were able to manufacture the quality they did given what they had to work with. Most of us have tools far better than that in our garage.

 

[Paul Brameld]

Great stuff Keith.
Cannot get over the girls wearing red nail varnish while assembling aero engines !! :-0
Astounding ( as well as all that being said about photographic gear etc.)!
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: