|
Post by davesworld on Nov 3, 2007 7:04:51 GMT -5
This is an image of my grandparent's wedding day in 1928. I love the quality and style of these shots. I wish I knew what type of camera they were taken with (any ideas). I have a few more from that era if the members are interested. Dave.
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Nov 3, 2007 7:39:30 GMT -5
More please Dave.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Nov 3, 2007 9:13:32 GMT -5
Dave
Vintage photos are always interesting especially when they have a history relating to your family. We are just starting to scan my father in laws old med format negs with some interesting, to us, results. You just never know what is in the box. Thanks for sharing.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by olroy2044 on Nov 3, 2007 14:34:53 GMT -5
Dave: Wonderful old photo! Love to see these old photos preserved! Ol--oldtimer myself-Roy
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Nov 3, 2007 20:04:09 GMT -5
Dave,
Lovely period family picture. Yes, please. Let's see some more from that era. I love looking at period photos.
You ask for ideas about the camera. OK, I'll be rash and stick my neck out. This is pure conjecture, guessing if you like, but here goes.
I don't think this is an amateur snapshot. I would think this picture was posed and taken by the pro photographer that covered the wedding. It doesn't look like a studio background. Minimum of props, just a chair, so I presume it was taken just after the reception when the bride had changed before leaving on their honeymoon.
It might seem a little ungallant for your grandmother to be standing while your grandfather was sitting, but he looks quite a lot taller than she is, so I think the pose was chosen to avoid him towering over her. The bride and groom are turned slightly towards each other, with heads turned towards the camera. The faces are about the same distance from the camera, just in case the dof was a little shallow. Good, experienced professional posing away from the studio.
1928 (the year I was born) ... let's see. Not many pros at that time, or even into the 1930s, were using a format as small as 6x9 cm for weddings, but the camera had to be portable, easy to focus and probably easily used either on a tripod or hand held for use outside the studio, so I wouldn't go for a big 'head under the cloth' studio camera. I'd go for either a folding press-type camera or maybe a big SLR using plates or cut film, 9x12 cm or possibly 5x4 inch, with a 6 inch (150mm) lens for a 'natural perspective'.
No hard shadows, not even behind the chair legs, so it looks as if it was taken by available light. No grain, so it wasn't one of the then new 'ultra-rapid' emulsions, but the tone range in the faces looks too good for it to have been orthochromatic, and the red lips haven't come out dark, so I would guess at one of the early 'rapid' panchromatic emulsions with a speed rating around 500 to 650 H&D, roughly 20 to 25 ASA or ISO. Most early panchromatic emulsions were on plates (easier to load into a developing tank in the dark), so I would go for a plate rather than cut film.
If the camera was hand-held, the photographer wouldn't want to use a shutter speed slower than he could help. I'd go for 1/100sec or at slowest 1/50sec. Pros trained themselves to hold a big camera steady at those speeds, but it doesn't look quite needle-sharp enough to be a tripod shot.
Soft available light, possibly from a large window or an open door to the right, helped a little by the overhead light just visible reflected in the mirror behind them. This would need a fairly large aperture for the day, so I'd hazard a guess at either an f/4.5 Tessar or an f/4.5 Cooke, both very popular lenses with pros in the 1920s, used wide open or perhaps stopped down to f/5.6. Large enough aperture to throw the background out of focus, but with enough dof to allow for slight errors in focusing distance.
OK: Sherlock Holmes detective work if you're charitable. Pure conjecture, guessing, conjuring up something from nothing and making bricks without straw if you're honest. But that would be my guess.
Shields lowered, ready to be shot at.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by davesworld on Nov 5, 2007 6:40:08 GMT -5
Peter, I read your comments and I was amazed! I am at this moment Googling all your references. Have you ever thought of working for the FBI or The Secret Service? I feel you have an untapped career awaiting Rachel, whenever I am asked for more, and especially from a lady, I will always comply! This is an image of my Great Grandfather, Duncan Sinclair's Blacksmith shop which I think is around 1900, he is the one on the left. I have just emailed my cousin, the family historian for comfirmation of time and will post the answer soon. More images to follow Dave
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Nov 5, 2007 15:48:38 GMT -5
Sssshhhh, Dave! They might hear you! Those organisations, at least the UK one, are like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like - but you can never leave. Peter
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Nov 5, 2007 17:55:22 GMT -5
Dave, That picture of Duncan Sinclair's blacksmith shop is a wonderful old photo, and full of interest. I assume this was scanned in from a print? The original was likely to have been on a fragile glass plate which, if it still exists, needs to be treated and stored with care. If old plates like this get damp the emulsion can peel off in next to no time. I've read that in the days of wet-plate photography in the 1860s and 1870s it was quite common for photographers to clean off the plates where the picture wasn't sufficiently "artistic", and use them again. How many interesting pictures were destroyed, I wonder?
There must also be thousands of interesting old family snapshot and holiday negatives still tucked away in paper wallets in drawers and cupboards, or prints in old family photo albums. Every so seldom they come to light when people clear out and send stuff to boot fairs and flea markets. I snap them up if I see them. They fetch only a few pence. From a photography point of view they're often terrible, so no-one collects them, but the pictures can sometimes be full of interest.
About five or so years ago Kodak and the BBC sponsored a nationwide campaign asking people to send their old unwanted pictures and negatives to the UK Museum of Photography in Bradford. I gather they've still got several thousand waiting to be sorted and catalogued for future social historians to peruse.
That's why I often advocate taking loads of pictures in and around your local town - the streets, shops, people, vehicles. I'm not for a moment decrying the wonderful landscapes that some members post, even though I'm not very good at them. But many landscapes don't change much over generations. Towns, shops, fashions, and vehicles do, and maybe someone, a couple of generations from now, will bless you for capturing the 'passing moment'.
Back to your picture: all three men look quite muscular from their hard physical work, especially the one on the right just in front of the letter F in FORGE. I assume from his big leather apron that he was the farrier.
"The smith, a mighty man is he, With large and sinewy hands; And the muscles of his brawny arms Are strong as iron bands. "
I wonder if the lad on the right was an apprentice or just visiting? He doesn't seem dressed to be an apprentice. Lads usually started their training by doing all the clearing up and other mucky jobs. related to one of the others, maybe? Perhaps your cousin would know?
I also like the waggon with the big curving dash standing just outside the shop. It looks as if there's a load platform behind the seat, but with those spindly wheels it wasn't really built for slow heavy loads. More like shopping trips into town behind a trotting horse. There's also an interesting piece of machinery against the wall of the shop behind the farrier. No doubt someone into agricultural history could say what type of plough it is.
BTW if anyone's interested in the derivation of dash, or dashboard, it was to protect the occupants from the spray or 'dash' thrown up by the horse's hooves in wet weather. Some passenger wagons had them at the sides as well. I believe the term's still used for the protective screens on some small boats.
I've waffled on enough!
Keep 'em coming, Dave. I could, and sometimes do, spend hours looking at old photos when I've got the time. I've got several books about looking at them and 'interpreting' them, but there just aren't enough hours in a lifetime to do everything that's interesting.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by davesworld on Nov 16, 2007 6:59:17 GMT -5
Family history says that this a photo of my Grandfather, (foreground left) moving a house from Conargo to Deniliquin, New South Wales, around 1920. I'm not sure how accurate it is, because he always prefered bullock teams over horses. Toughest man I ever met, and the kindest! Note: the kids still sitting in the house!
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Nov 16, 2007 10:59:08 GMT -5
Dave -
Not too concerned about the horses v oxen... I want to know how he got it on the wagon!
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Nov 16, 2007 11:58:30 GMT -5
Very carefully, John. Very carefully! Walker
|
|