What is Digg?103 Comments
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44On the contrary. Colour film has existed since the early 1900s, but since the world didn't turn colour until the 50s, what we have is colour photographs of black and white.
- JED9, on 10/12/2007, -6/+47color wasnt invented yet! the world was black and white until like 50 years ago right?
- TheBigBrother, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43It's weird because when I try to visualize past events (the 30s and 40s in this case), I would just think of black and white images.
- michaelconnor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20It is amazing how much difference a little color can make. Few things have given me so much a sense of connection with my grandparents' generation.
- daRoach, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20And most painters were insane and painted with multiple shades of gray so when everything turned color in the '50s their paintings unintentionally turned color as well.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Unless you lived it! This is probably GREAT for our grandmothers and grandfathers!
- neggbird, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25People today who live like people in those pictures are frowned upon. They would be considered rednecks or hicks. :/
- fauxpas338, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15What I don't get is that the guy who doesn't seem to get the sarcasm actually has a picture of Hobbes in his profile... and named himself after Hobbes... yet didn't recognize the Calvin and Hobbes reference.
- FriscoTony, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@HobbesDoo
[quote]
Geez, do a little research before saying stupid things like "color wasn't invented yet".
[/quote]
Geez, do a little thinking before posting a comment. Did you catch the part where he said the *world* was black and white? See, it's a joke. - Topslakr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I believe JED9 didn't mean color photos.. I think he meant color in general. As in the world was black and white... twas sarcasm...
- korteenea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Does that inflation calculator take into account the inflation in consumer gullibility?
- yonis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10If you bring any of these photos into Photoshop and correct the levels, color balance, and saturation, it really breathes a lot more life into the photo. Try it! :-)
- eurocrisp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10These are very excellent... Many indirect thanks to the individual responsible for digitally scanning these positives. With very minimal Photoshop work they can be made to look as if they were taken this morning on modern equipment, which really opens up a sort of window into the past, as much as that sounds cliche...
- ZennZero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Napleon Dynamite's grandmother?
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0022.jpg - InContrast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Time machine.
- Daedalus81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0005.jpg
1c oranges and 'Model smoking tobacco'! - coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Weirdest thing about this is thinking about how the future will visualize us. We have so many ways to record data that full color pictures of this era will be incredibly prolific. That is unless some massive solar flare knocks out all of our data and electricity.
In that case we'll just have a bunch of artsy pictures and maybe some old people pictures...since they're really the only people still using film. Man the future will think we're weird. - sych0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9i thought these were hi-res :(
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This guy worked at a carbon black plant:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0055.jpg
Wow. He looks like something back from the dead.
And these guys are part of an M4 tank crew:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0056.jpg
Check out that incredible body armor. Ouch! - surfit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Those photo weirdly make me think of Australia rather than the USA.
- hriwo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Great pictures, but they aren't HiRez files.
- breakfastpants, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@sirspocksalot
I missed the part where he said he looked at them that way. - Raian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6check out this inflation calculator:
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
that 5 cent bottle of pepsi in 1942 should be 63 cents in 2005... - boo5000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8100%? lol, $.01 to $1 is a bit more than 100%. But we got the point :).
- spiffytech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7For those totally lost on the conversation, this thread of comments refers to a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip in which the young Calvin asks his dad why older photographs weren't in color. The above remarks were his dads response, since his dad didn't know the real reason.
- jpcoombs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Lol, this little post has to be a dichotomy of people with educations and those with out.
- malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think the point behind the colour photographs of these times relates more to the way we the viewer percieve and relate to the content contained in the images.
I know for me personally I find it somewhat difficult to picture the past (even 100 years ago) and what life would have been like, black and white photographs seem to make life the images of the past more depressing or older, colour makes them seem more real, well at least for me, I am able to relate to the image much more easily. - kennyGS13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5very interesting to see colour pics of this era
- evizaer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I love looking at color pictures from 60+ years ago. It really makes you feel your mortality to think that most of the non-children in these pictures are dead now. I love seeing what life was like back then--how much different yet how similar everything is/was.
Strangely, one of the photographers creditted inthat collection has the exact same name as my grandfather: Arthur Siegel. - HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sometimes I forget that things actually had color back then.
- Mexrocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4wow, these photos are so... I dont know how to describe it, color really adds something to these pictures and I'm listening to Explosions In The Sky and it just adds a whole new feel to it....
- Swampthing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The strange thing looking at photos like this, as though they are brand new to us, is that all the people in the photos are probably long dead or in the eighties or nineties by now! Too bad many of those folks aren't online to see these. But I really appreciate this color window into a previously seen as black and white existence...
- Swampthing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4These photos were taken from an online exhibition from the Library of Congress. Here's a direct link to those and hundreds more like it online: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html
- mintshows, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"that 5 cent bottle of pepsi in 1942 should be 63 cents in 2005..."
Which is about right, considering that those bottles were either 8 or 16 oz bottles, and your average 12oz can still costs between $0.50 - $0.60 cents. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5MAN those were some ugly people!
- lsdeath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Gotta love the "Buy War Bonds" poster in the school
- elastikos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They look brilliant. Glad they were posted up.
- Thrashtastic27, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love the picture of Chicago, absolutely fantastic. Makes me wish they had a few of Philadelphia :-
- qster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wonderful pictures, they have a lot of life in them.
- ronabop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love how many americans in the pictures are fat, sedentary, paper-pushing morons, thus proving that we havn't failed our fore fathers by choosing self-indulgent luxury over the common good.
- crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Look at the sky:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0053.jpg
So blue and clean... - randomc0de, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Rosco and FatherG
There's no such thing as "resolution" for a photograph... you can blow up a single negative to incredible preportions and still maintain perfect clarity. What hriwo meant was that they were scanned in at a low resolution, which is pretty true. I would prefer to see the images up close myself, especially the watering hole ones. A low-res scanned image just can't to it justice. - breakfastpants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@randomc0de
Ever hear of grain? It's important. Its also pretty dominant in the old style of color photos, as it actually used a starch based color mask. - draggy73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There's also some very nice , very old color pictures from the Russian empire as far back as 1905!
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
The pictures are breathtaking - tainc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Except Technicolor was (and is) a specific company that dealt (deals) with reel film, not still image film. These were most likely done by autochrome.
- itsmrchris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2anyone have the link to the article mentioned of London circa 1949 ? ?
- logicalnoise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looking at those is just very offsetting. I live near chiacgo and I've seen thousands of pictures of old chicago all in black and white. The 5 ones in color are the most striking ones I've ever seen. The only one that beats it is driving east on lake shore drive at midnight crossing the chicago river. The lights rival las vegas from that POV.
- JayRod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2These might be what you are looking for, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Sba2
-
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
