GE #11 or Sylvania Press 40 would have been even stronger. Those were the
standards for use with 4x5 press cameras. Our wedding photos, in 1951, were
made with that setup.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:20 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: Old cameras, photos and restoration [was which one ?]
> Your response caused me to look up the specs of flashbulbs of the day.
> The GE #5 or Sylvnia Press 25 had guide numbers of 200 feet at ASA 100.
> That's about the same as two T45s.
> <http://www.graflex.org/flash/technical.html>
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Ken Norton wrote:
>> Dr Flash wrote:
>>> Aunt Annie's wedding dinner photo really is amazing on many levels.
>>> There is no way the DOF could be so great on a large format camera
>>> unless the camera was capable of tilt or swing. Also, given the small
>>> apertures of a large camera, the slow speed of film of the day and no
>>> apparent subject motion I would have to assume that flash was used.
>>
>> First of all, I believe that the photograph is consistant with a quality
>> 4x5
>> camera of the time. 8x10 was certainly used, but almost exclusively for
>> contact-prints. 4x5, even on the films of the day, was capable of
>> tremendous detail and smoothness. The edge-to-edge sharpness indicates a
>> reasonable aperture and a tilted lens to increase the DoF.
>>
>>> However, I can't find much indication of that in the shadows although
>>> there certainly is some (see, especially, the lower left corner).
>>> Another amazing point is that I can't find anyone blinking. I can find
>>> a few women not looking at the camera who may have their eyes closed but
>>> no one looking at the camera whose eyes are not open. Makes me wish I
>>> could talk to that photographer.
>>
>> I'm stewing on the lighting too. It looks barebulb, but there are
>> telltails
>> of flash-powder. In the 100% view, you can see the lady's arm/hand move.
>> She may have flinched during the exposure, but this may be the clue that
>> it
>> was flash-powder, because the duration of the flash lighting would have
>> been
>> extensive.
>>
>> No eyes closed? I'm more inclined to believe the photo was touched-up.
>> (Editing didn't begin with Photoshop).
>>
>> Regardless, it is an amazing photograph and one which I'm not so sure I'd
>> have a clue how to replicate today and achieve the same level of quality.
>>
>> AG
>>
>>
>> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.zone-10.com
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.10/1551 - Release Date:
>> 7/14/2008 6:49 AM
>>
>>
>>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|